In a message dated 5/30/2006 11:20:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
john@harlie.idsfa.net writes:
Yes, the criterion of adequacy...of what? The prior sentence refers
to "adequate muffler", and the title of section 3.5 is "Mufflers".
Gee, I wonder what they could be referring to!
According to your interpretation, sentence 2 directly contradicts
sentence 1. There must be a muffler. But what the system consists of
doesn't matter. But there must be a muffler. Do you really think
that the SEB meant to write a self-contradictory rule?
Muffler:
defn: A device that absorbs noise, especially one used with an
internal-combustion engine.
The "device" does not need to be of any specific design, just capable of
absorbing noise...so whether the accepted term for the device is "down pipe",
"turbo", "dump or turn down" etc. is irrelevant in it's being a "muffler".
In other words, it depends on your definition of "is" ;-)
Mike
|