karthikpandian19 wrote:Contrary to popular belief, there is no economic benefit from routine auto safety inspections. While routine safety inspections can avert future auto maintenance expenses by preventing accidents and major repairs, recent studies show that the money thus saved only accounts for slightly less than half of the inspections' costs.

Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the conclusion above?


(A) The auto maintenance costs incurred from accidents are not nearly as high as the medical and other types of expenses also incurred. This attacks the argument directly. The argument says there is not economic benefit. This clearly states that there is an economic benefit.

(B) The cost, per vehicle, of routine safety inspections would not change regardless of the scale on which they were implemented. This is irrelevant to conclusion

(C) When dealing with issues of safety, economic issues should ideally not be a primary concern. This is irrelevant to conclusion

(D) Highly skilled mechanics are necessary to effectively prevent future accidents and major repairs, and such mechanics are extremely expensive. This actually strengthens the argument

(E) Similar inspections for buses, trains, and other forms of transportation have proven cost effective in the long term This is irrelevant to conclusion