Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause 'big accidents', while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in 'big' accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.

Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?

A. Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a belt
B. All drivers should be required by law to wear a belt
C. The ratio of 'big' to 'small' road accidents is very small
D. In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seat
E. On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.