Here is my thinking to solve the problem. First, the conclusion of the paragraph is "For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident." "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error, investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training program" is the premise. The question asks for the "presupposition" of the argument which means the answer needs to best support the conclusion. So, if we look at the answers one by one. A: Pilot error is not a contributing factor in most airline accidents. - When putting A and the other premise together, it kinna works but the 2 premises conflict eath other. "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error..." tells us that clearly the author thinks pilot error is a contributing factor but she'd rather focus on the root cause. D: Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents. - When putting together with the other premise, articulate a clear logic which is "Investigators of airline accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents" so, "Instead of blaming an airline accident on pilot error (which would not help fix the problem to happen again), investigators should find out why the error was made by analyzing airplane design, airline management, and pilot-training program." => "For only then can changes be made to ensure that the same type of error does not recur and cause another accident. " My humble opinion. Feedback is welcomed. |