Re: X: When a rare but serious industrial accident occurs, peopl
[#permalink]
06 Nov 2019, 12:47
(A) It questions the aptness of the analogy drawn by X.
We can not choose this option, because Y does not talk about poker
(B) It makes apparent X's failure to consider how people vary in their responses to a serious accident.
We can not say that it is the X's failure. And, moreover, Y does not talk about how people vary.
(C) It shifts the basis for judging rationality to considerations of utility.
Very good. Y mentions a rationality of the belief, but does not prove it, he simply shifts a topic - he talks about utility of the belief. Because people bevome more afraid and now they will take some precautions in future.
(D) It offers an alternative explanation of why people form incorrect beliefs.
Y does not give any alternative explanation
(E) It challenges X's assumption that the occurrence of a single event is sufficient to change a belief.
It dpes not chane anything
Ask for further assistance.
Regards