Critical Reasoning

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 will go with C.

its saying that the reason for accidents is not the color of the car but the drivers who are reckless.

IMO E .

The conclusion talks about saving lives .

If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether.

Even I went for E but the question want to weaken the Reasoning not conclusion..

Hi Force,
Is reason = red cars are involved in crash.

OA is C.

C
argument says:

If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether

.
its not just the red cars causing the accidents, wht abt the drivers driving thm?
even if u ban red cars, the reckless drivers may choose other ones and accidnet rates still remain the same. argument ignores that point.
E says
makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life
even if evry accidet doesnt result, some do result in loss of life. so if its true tht by baning red cars lives can be saved, those 'some' lives can well be saved.
this IMO strenghtens the argument.

Yes HSPA was going to acknowledge the reasoning. you are correct that the question is to weaken the reasoning and hence solution.

Rohu is correct in explaining E.
E infact, is strengthening the reasoning. even if lives are not lost on every accident, some lives will still be saved. Its just how the question wants you to not think...

C talks about the culprit drivers. Hence its not about the red or green or a blue car... its about the drivers who are driving them which is causing the problem. with C we are negating the premise that Red Cars are causing accidents.....

Hope it helps.. Let me know if there is still a doubt bro...