lionsshare wrote:Beginning in 1966 all new cars sold in Morodia were required to have safety belts and power steering. Previously, most cars in Morodia were without these features. Safety belts help to prevent injuries in collisions, and power steering helps to avoid collisions in the first place. But even though in 1966 one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars, the number of car collisions and collision-related injuries did not decline.

Which of the following, if true about Morodia, most helps to explain why the number of collisions and collision-related injuries in Morodia failed to decline in 1966?
A. Because of a driver-education campaign, most drivers and passengers in cars that did have safety belts used them in 1966.
B. Most of the new cars bought in 1966 were bought in the months of January and February.
C. In 1965, substantially more than one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars.
D. An excessive reliance on the new safety features led many owners of new cars to drive less cautiously in 1966 than before.
E. The seat belts and power steering put into new cars sold in 1966 had to undergo strict quality-control inspections by manufacturers, whether the cars were manufactured in Morodia or not.

PREMISE: In 1966, safety belts (SB) and power steering (PS) required in new cars
PREMISE: Previously, most cars didn't have SB and PS
PREMISE: In 1966, 1/7 of old cars were replaced with new cars (with SB and PS)
CONCLUSION: In 1966, no reduction in Collisions and collision related injuries

PARADOX: Increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries

Let's check the answer choices while also reminding ourselves what the paradox is...

A) Does this explain why the increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries?
NO.
In fact this makes the paradox even more confusing since having more people use seat belts should have resulted in fewer injuries.
ELIMINATE A

B) Does this explain why the increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries?
NO.
IF it had been the case that most of the new cars were bought at the END of 1996, then it is conceivable that there would have been little change to the number of accidents and injuries. However, statement B says the opposite; it says that these new cars were around for pretty much the entire year. As such, these new and safer cars should have helped reduce the collisions and injuries.
ELIMINATE B

C) Does this explain why the increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries?
NO.
We're told that most cars made before 1966 did not have good safety features. So it makes no difference how many cars were sold in 1965
ELIMINATE C

D) Does this explain why the increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries?
YES!!
The new safety features made the owners drive more recklessly. THIS is why the new features did not reduce collisions and injuries
KEEP D

E) Does this explain why the increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries?
NO.
The fact of the matter is that the cars sold in 1966 had better safety features.
ELIMINATE E

Answer: E

Cheers,
Brent