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

The OA is C although I cannot understand the reason for it... If there is the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars, that meants that banning red cars from the roads will save human lives...
Please explain me

The OA is C although I cannot understand the reason for it...
If there is the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars, it means that banning red cars from the roads will save human lives...
Please explain

The OA is C although I cannot understand the reason for it... If there is the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars, that meants that banning red cars from the roads will save human lives...
Please explain me

RANEL, HERE POINT TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT IF RED CARS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCSIDENTS BUT DRIVERS ARE RESPONSIBLE, THAN IF RED CARS ARE BANNED THE ACCIDENT RATES WILL NOT DEACREASE AS THOSE DRIVERS WHO DRIVE RECKLESSLY WOULD NOW DRIVE CARS WITH OTHER COLORS BUT STILL MEET WITH ACCIDENTS DUE TO THEIR BAD DRIVING.

ranell wrote:The OA is C although I cannot understand the reason for it... If there is the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars, that meants that banning red cars from the roads will save human lives...
Please explain me

Think about it. Banning red cars wont save human lives because these drivers will drive other colored cars. They won't give up on driving altogether. The problem is with drivers and not cars. Hence, you can say, there is a different cause (Drivers) for this effect (Charging higher premium) than the cause mentioned (Red color). Thus C weakens / points out the flaw.

I believe the answer should be C