Woohoo! Congrats!

To make the stimulus easier to comprehend, I identified the type of reasoning being used - cost/benefit. The premises only note that a good thing occurs when not intervened with. The conclusion then is that we shouldn’t intervene. But what about potential costs? We haven’t determined yet if they get factored into the situation, so if we are to conclude that just because this positive thing happens that we shouldn’t intervene, we have to establish that no other considerations matter in our cost/benefit analysis. aka even if there are costs, they are can’t weigh up to the positives our premise gave us of it flourishing. Answer choice B does that for us by saying the only legitimate concern is the one the premise gave us.

At first, I had a hard time understanding why unreliable does not equate to not accurate. But then I thought of what preponderance of the evidence means; you just have to tip the scale ever so slightly in your favor (50% plus a feather). Both sides may present accurate facts, but one side just gave a more complete story to tip the scale in their favor. In that way, one side of the scale is the pilot's reports and the other side is the air traffic control tapes. So, return to how the airport administrator said in the stimulus that the air traffic control tapes are unreliable. The administrator isn't saying the tapes are not accurate, but that the scale is tipped in the pilot reports' favor.