the car-safety group looked at many tesla cars because they were worried that the front part of the car could break and make driving AIgerous. they found out that it wasn't really a problem, so they stopped looking into it. but they still think it might be a problem, so they asked tesla to fix it for all the cars that have the issue. Read from source...

It appears as though the author of the article, Anan Ashraf, attempted to provide a balanced account of the US auto safety regulator closing the 3-year-long probe into Tesla vehicles. However, it becomes evident that the author has a positive inclination towards Tesla, Inc. and may not have presented an impartial viewpoint.

This is apparent through the language used, such as calling Tesla vehicles 'equipped' instead of 'faulty', which may lead readers to perceive that the probe was unjustified. The use of the phrase "may not have presented an impartial viewpoint" seems to insinuate that the author was possibly bribed or coerced into writing a positive article about Tesla. This is an irrational argument and could be damaging to the author's credibility if not addressed properly. It would be advisable for the author to re-examine the language used and strive to achieve a more balanced perspective, free from emotional behavior and unnecessary speculation.

Moreover, the article may have left out important information concerning the probe, such as details about the extent of the issue, the cost of the repair, and how frequently the problem occurred. These details would have been essential in providing a comprehensive view of the situation and in assessing the validity of the investigation.

Lastly, the author could have taken the opportunity to provide further insights into the investigation's conclusion and how it might impact Tesla's reputation and the electric vehicle market as a whole. By failing to do so, the author has presented an incomplete picture of the probe's significance, thereby depriving the reader of a comprehensive understanding of the matter. Overall, the article could have benefited from a more rigorous and impartial approach to storytelling.

Based on the news article, it appears that Tesla Inc. (TSLA) has been cleared of safety concerns related to front suspension failure in its Model S and Model X vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) closed its investigation involving 75,000 vehicles without finding any instances of part failure resulting in loss of vehicle control. However, NHTSA clarified that the closure of the investigation does not preclude the possibility of a safety-related defect being present, and that further action could be taken if needed. It should also be noted that while Tesla issued a consumer satisfaction bulletin in 2017 to replace faulty fore links in some vehicles, it reportedly did not cover all instances of fore link failures identified during the investigation. As such, an investment in Tesla Inc. comes with associated risks, and investors should consider the above factors before making any investment decisions.

Investment recommendation: Given the news article's context, investors may wish to consider Tesla Inc. (TSLA) as a potential investment opportunity. Despite the risks associated with the closure of the NHTSA investigation, Tesla's clearance of safety concerns might alleviate concerns over potential vehicle defects and could potentially boost investor sentiment towards the company. As such, investors looking to gain exposure to the electric vehicle sector may wish to consider adding Tesla to their portfolios. However, investors should also conduct their own independent research and due diligence before making any investment decisions.