The demand for tires is considered to be a 'derived demand.'

Option A: VALID
This is very true. Take for example, New York city. There is every possibility that the demands for tires wont be commensurate with the numbers of cars available in the city due to good roads devoid of tire wearing potholes, also, people could go round the city in public transport which would take pressure off their personal cars.

Option B: INVALID
This statement has in fact, weakened the writer's argument by way of contradicting the inverse proportionality of the urban-car distribution. From the write-up derived demand does not apply to urban settlements.

Option C: INVALID
This is the wrong supposition. To think people wont buy cars, considered to be luxuries, because of simple excuses as those of car parking lots, is rather unfortunate and uninformed.

Option D: INVALID
This is not correct because, tires are likely to wear out more in non-urban settlements because of the dearth of motorable road infrastructures. Potholes do exist in some parts truly but it would be lame to seek to generalize it as it is nothing compared to non-urban areas.

Option E: INVALID
This maybe correct but it is entirely a fact because tires are used for other purposes. In military checkpoints set-up, in bonfire crusades and in the destruction of major dump sites for easier conflagration of dirt hills.