Passage Summary: Hernandez suggests keeping company cars for four years to save money. Green argues some drivers wear them out in three. Hernandez clarifies he was only talking about cars used normally.

Conclusion: Hernandez clarifies that the recommendation to replace cars every four years was intended to apply specifically to vehicles subjected to normal usage.

Reasoning: Green points out that some salespeople wear out their cars in three years; Hernandez responds by narrowing the scope of the original claim to exclude these high-wear cases.

Analysis: This is a classic 'Method of Reasoning' question where the respondent qualifies their original position. Hernandez doesn't fight Green's evidence; instead, Hernandez defines the terms of the original argument more precisely to show that Green’s counterexample falls outside the intended scope. When analyzing this, focus on how the second speaker shifts from a general claim to a more specific one. Look for an answer that describes this as 'qualifying' or 'narrowing' the initial proposal.