Chốt như này

-----

...The congressional report identified five broad problems with the plane's design, construction and certification. First, the race to compete with (chạy đua cạnh tranh) the new Airbus A320neo led Boeing to make production goals and cost-cutting (cắt giảm chi phí) a higher priority (ưu tiên cao hơn) than safety (an toàn), the Democrats argued. Second, the company made deadly assumptions (giả định chết người) about software known as MCAS, which was blamed for sending the planes into nosedives (đâm bổ nhào xuống đất). Third, Boeing withheld (giữ, giấu) critical information (thông tin quan trọng) from the F.A.A. Fourth, the agency’s practice of delegating (ủy quyền, phân quyền) oversight (giám sát) authority to Boeing employees left it in the dark. And finally, the Democrats accused F.A.A. management of siding with Boeing and dismissing its own experts.

“These issues must be addressed by both Boeing and the F.A.A. in order to correct poor certification practices that have emerged, reassess key assumptions that affect safety and enhance transparency (minh bạch) to enable more effective oversight,” the committee said.

...Those crashes (tai nạn, đâm) were caused in part by the MCAS system aboard the Max. Because the engines on the Max are larger and placed higher than on its predecessor, they could cause the jet’s nose to push upward in some circumstances. MCAS was designed to push the nose back down. In both crashes, the software was activated by faulty sensors, sending the planes toward the ground as the pilots (phi công) struggled to pull them back up.