Critical Reasoning

HMVs (heavy motor vehicles) currently account for 8% of miles driven on Scrofulasia's roads but are involved in 16% of all highway fatalities. Huge HMVs - those with three trailers - had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer HMVs. Clearly, therefore, one way for Scrofulasia to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer HMVs.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Very few fatal collisions involving HMVs in Scrofulasia are collisions between two HMVs.
B. In Scrofulasia, the safety record of the trucking industry as a whole has improved slightly over the past ten years.
C. Scrofulasian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer HMVs on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.
D. In Scrofulasia, the maximum legal payload of a triple-trailer truck is less than three times the maximum legal payload of the largest of the single-trailer HMVs
E. No matter what changes Scrofulasia makes in the regulation of trucking, it will have to keep some smaller roads off-limits to all HMV (heavy motor vehicles).

OA is [spoiler]D[/spoiler]

I could not understand, pl clarify

IMO - C

imo c

d IS OUT OF SCOPE.

IMO C
Expert HElp

Premise: HMVs drive 8% of road miles but are involved in 16% of highway fatalities.
Premise: Huge HMVs have less than one-third the accident rate of smaller HMVs.

Conclusion: Use more huge HMVs to decrease the number of highway fatalities.

A. Irrelevant--nothing to do with the idea that using huge HMVs will decrease fatalities

B. Okay, but how does that affect the plan to use huge HMVs?

C. Good. This means the accident rate may be artificially low, and now we have a reason to believe that using more huge HMVs won't have the desired impact.

D. Does not effect the outcome of the plan. How does maximum payload correspond to accidents and fatalities?

E. Has no bearing on huge HMVs vs other HMVs.


Where is this from?

ranjeet75 wrote:HMVs (heavy motor vehicles) currently account for 8% of miles driven on Scrofulasia's roads but are involved in 16% of all highway fatalities. Huge HMVs - those with three trailers - had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer HMVs. Clearly, therefore, one way for Scrofulasia to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer HMVs.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Very few fatal collisions involving HMVs in Scrofulasia are collisions between two HMVs.
B. In Scrofulasia, the safety record of the trucking industry as a whole has improved slightly over the past ten years.
C. Scrofulasian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer HMVs on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.
D. In Scrofulasia, the maximum legal payload of a triple-trailer truck is less than three times the maximum legal payload of the largest of the single-trailer HMVs
E. No matter what changes Scrofulasia makes in the regulation of trucking, it will have to keep some smaller roads off-limits to all HMV (heavy motor vehicles).

OA is D

I could not understand, pl clarify

I also think C is the best answer since it suggests that the triple-trailers have fewer accidents because they're driven on lightly traveled roads. Therefore replacing all other HMVs (which travel on more populated roads) with triple-trailers will likely increase the accident rates of triple-trailers. Thus the conclusion that fatalities overall will be reduced is weakened.

Does the source explain why answer D is the OA?