Critical Reasoning

Even though air bags make cars safer in crashes, the law does not require car manufacturers to equip new cars with these lifesaving restraints. THis lack of regulation disadvantages many people, for only car buyers who can afford the extra cost of air bags now enjoy that superior crash protection. Just as all milk is required by law to be pasteurized to protect people against the bovine tuberculosis in raw milk, cars should be required by law to be equipped with air bags to mzximize vehicle safety.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the author's argument?

A) Car buyers wh can afford to do so choose cars equipped with airbags in preference to cars not equipped with airbags
B) Car manufacturers should not equip cars with air bags solely to compensate for deficiencies in the steering power of cars.
C) The cost of equipping a new car with an airbag will decrease over time as car manfuacturers find more efficient ways of making and instaling airbags.
D) Equipping cars with air bags will not decrease significantly the number of car crashes
E) Since tuberculosis is infectious, people who drink unpasteurized milk are a threat to public health, whereas people who drive cars without air bags at most endanger the life of the car's occupants.

OA is E
I couldnt choose btn D and E, can someone explain pls?

Hi - There is a trap in (D)
If you keenly notice, D states that equipping cars with air bags will not decrease number of car crashes but the argument talks about the safety of the cars. So, this is deviating from the actual argument.

Choice E is correct in weakening the argument that cars without air bags at most endanger the life of the car's occupants and not the whole public as discussed in the argument.

Hope this clarifies your question.

Looking at it now, D makes sense