ANSWER: C

my official answer is also C it took me some time in getting the question

IMO C

(A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.
-- irrelevant
(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
-- This has reverse effect

(C) The roads in provinces and states with stringent car safety programs are far more congested and therefore dangerous than in other provinces and states.
-- This explains the high density of accidents per km and also helps understand the contrast

(D) Psychological studies show that drivers who regularly wear seat belts often come to think of themselves as serious drivers, which for a few people discourages reckless driving.
-- Does not help

(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads then do other provinces and states.
-- This should reduce the accident/km density. So this is wrong!

Answer is C

My answer is (C)

"The roads in provinces and states with stringent car safety programs are far more congested and therefore dangerous than in other provinces and states. "

More cars on the road means more chance of accident per kilometer.

C wins.

A. Not at all relevant to the issue.
B. Overconfidence after safety inspection, again does not deal with the issue.
C. Tells us that the roads, where the programs are existing, are dangerous. Hence the accidents would probably have been greater than current levels if the seat belt program was not in place.
D. Tries to confuse you. But if the drivers, who regularly wear seatbelts tend to be involved in fewer accidents, this is almost like a premise of the stimulus. Does not solve the paradox.
E. Totally irrelevant.

(C ) shows that roads with stringent requirements are more dangerous hence the seatsbelts still help to reduce accidents.

Definitely C

answer = C

As all others said, choice A , D, E and B do not really explain the paradox which is mentioned in argument . only choice C wins.

The correct answer is definitely C.

Here we have scope shift. Argument started with the province and state and ended with highway experts.

It should ring the bell.

Argument created paradox by comparing the province and state accidents with the highway accidents. (Here we have the answer). what if highways have fewer accidents with the restrictions and roads in the province and state(with restrictions) have higher accidents due to congestion and overall rate is higher in the province and state.

Only choice C simulates this situation.

Although I am not an expert in CR and I am frustrated because of my performance in CR, in this example I think I have a say.
The conclusion is that even though safety requirements imposed by law, the data does not support that these impositions actually help in reducing accident rate, nevertheless, more stringent laws on road safety are required.
Hence, any premise from the options which says supports that more stringent laws are really required is the answer.
(A) Safety inspections ensure replacement of worn out tires - Nothing to do with road safety laws
(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection - Opposite of the conclusion
(C) The roads in provinces and states with stringent car safety programs are far more congested and therefore dangerous than in other provinces and states - Accident rates are high, may be, because of high congestion, may be an explanation, hence strengthens the conclusion
(D) Psychological studies show that drivers who regularly wear seat belts often come to think of themselves as serious drivers, which for a few people discourages reckless driving - Tells nothing about extra safety regulations
(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads then do other provinces and states - More km = > Less Accident rate per km, I agree with Parul09

Hence (C) is right.

(C)

(C)

Settled on C (glad to see it was correct) but I was torn between that and B. E never even crossed my mind as it didn't seem to accomplish much reconciliation. While I was leaning towards B, I didn't want to assume that overconfidence lead to more accidents.