Suppose that a group of engineers is helping supervise a spaceflight of a vehicle currently on it's way to the moon. And also suppose that, after the craft transits a field of small comet fragments, there is a persistent anomalous reading from sensors on the vehicle that is consistent with a small, but potentially dangerous puncture in the skin of the vehicle's engine module. Now finally suppose these engineers go to the project manager with this information. Bearing in mind the concept of "burden of proof" as articulated in this module, which of the following best describes how the project manager should respond?

Group of answer choices

The project manager should lock her door before the engineers get there, and sit quietly drinking Bourbon until they all go away because, let's face it$,$ engineers are very annoying.

The project manager should fire the engineers for trying to get her to authorize a very expensive EVA for such a trivial, and non$-$scientific reason.

The project manager should not authorize an EVA until the engineers come back to her with absolute proof that vehicle actually has been significantly damaged. The problem is that, at this point, the manager has good reason to think that something is very likely wrong, AND, at this point, the only way to find out if anything is wrong is an EVA. Without an EVA, there is no way to tell if there's damage or not, and if$,$ as is very possible, there is damage, the EVA is the only way to have any assessment of that damage.

The project manager should authorize an EVA to inspect the area in question, to see if there is damage, and assess any damage seen.