OPTION A - INCORRECT
It is most inappropriate to say that road accident can be reduced by improving certain conditions such as lighting. This is because from the report, it can easily be noted that the collision from both junctions are the same. Hence, improving the condition by putting lighting won't still change anything. Rather, the same number of collisions will still be recorded with junctions with no such conditions

OPTION B - INCORRECT
Consequently, whether the company that installed the electronics signs have governmental approval or not, it still doesn't change anything. It's not useful, inconsequential and thus, wrong to believe. Whether approval or no approval, it doesn't change the fact that the collision equals or balances alike, whether electronic signs or none.

OPTION C - INCORRECT
As it stands, it is wrong to look it as the 50% of the collision. Certainly, it should be fatal. If not for anything by, the reason of the incident take place in a junction

OPTION D - INCORRECT
Just as in option B, this is inconsequential and wrong. However with the knowledge of exact same collision happening both on the non light and the light junction. The customers won't be needing to change their approach in anyway because it doesn't change anything.

OPTION E - CORRECT
This is so correct; just as in electric and non-electric junction recording same exact figure on collision. It is most likely to be same on the pedestrian because it is same type of users. And this makes it correct and useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument as stated in the report