@bobbyu1021 you still need to know how safe/unsafe the airline is to compare which one is safer. The argument then uses that records equal safety, where the flaw indicates that records might not equal safety. So basically what it’s saying is that the records make something safer (bc we know how safe it is) where the flaw is saying actually it’s not true, because a record could show a an airline crashes twice a week, but it still has a record, so just the existence of a record doesn’t guarantee safety

@CortlandStertzbach basically C is saying that the airlines record might say that they have constant accidents and therefore aren’t safe so like the record could say that it’s actually very dangerous and not safe

D is saying the argument is assuming that only airlines that are super safe document how safe they are, so like airlines that aren’t safe don’t document how safe they are.

So is it basically like, just because some one has one belief, we don’t know the full extent of it? Such as they might believe in exceptions or different outcomes?

Would it be correct to say that theoretically there could be overlap between A and C, but there is no way to guarantee that? Like with the context of the test, we have to be 100% sure the two overlap. But that there isnt an 100% chance they wouldn't overlap? for both some before some and most before most?