Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often
higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To
justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim
that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are
involved in accidents than are cars of any other color. If
this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved
by banning red cars from the roads altogether.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because
the argument

(A) accepts without question that insurance
companies have the right to charge higher
premiums for higher-risk clients
(B) fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to
repair as cars of other colors
(C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive
recklessly have a preference for red cars
(D) does not specify precisely what percentage of red
cars are involved in accidents
(E) makes an unsupported assumption that every
automobile accident results in some loss of life

I was confused between C & E. I chose C. However, I am wondering what people think about E and why it could be wrong?

Also your suggestion of first finding the assumptions before approaching the choices is kind of working. Not always though may be because I am not yet good at it.