- Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:10 pm
#28412
Hi, Mok,
B is the credited response.
The editorialist contends that exceeding design capacity would decrease safety based on numerous studies that concluded that all similar increases in size thirty years ago were accompanied by decreases in safety, even when the then-latest technology was used.
The flaw here concerns an analogy between the latest technology of thirty years ago and that of today. For your prephrase, you might consider something to the effect of: "The author makes a scurrilous analogy between old technology and new technology."
Answer choice B gives you a good match.
First, with A, you would have to clarify what your prephrase was and what you thought matched between this answer choice and the respective parts of the stimulus. The author does not draw a conclusion based on any general statement. He draws a conclusion based on the evidence of numerous studies, not from "a very limited number of particular instances."
With D, again there is not a match. The editorialist does not contend that the absence of evidence that the new expansion will be safe constitutes evidence that the expansion will not be safe. Rather, the editorialist provides his own flawed evidence to this effect.
I hope this explanation clarifies this problem for you.
