Weaken---Large trucks

[amysky_0205]

In the nation of Partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on Partoria's roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. The very largest trucks those with three trailers had less than a third of the accident rate of single and double trailer trucks. Clearly, therefore, one way for Partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to reduce shippers to increase their use of triple trucks.

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

A) No matter what changes Partoria makes in the regulation of trucking, it will have to keep some smaller roads off limits to all of larger trucks.
B) So far only the best, most experienced drivers for Partorian trucking companies have been driving triple trailer trucks.
C) Very few fatal collisions involving trucks in Partoria are collisions between two trucks.
D) In Partoria, the safety record of trucking industry as a whole has improved slightly over the past ten years.
E) In Partoria, the maximum legal payload of a trailer truck is less than three times the maximum legal payload of the largest of the single trailer trucks.

OA: B

can someone explain this one?
thank u so much!

[shenoydevika]

Hello amysky!

This one is pretty straightforward actually.

Ok here is what we know from the data given. In Partoria, trucks are involved in a lot of accidents. Triple trucks are involved in far fewer accidents than single and double trailer trucks. Therefore, Partoria can reduce highway deaths by increasing the use of triple trucks.

We are asked to choose the answer the choice that most seriously weakens the argument. When we are asked to weaken the argument, we should look for the choice that weakens the assumption. So what is the assumption here? Triple trucks are being compared to the smaller trucks. When do you compare two things? When they are similar right? You don't compare apples and oranges. So the assumption here is that the big trucks and the little trucks (their drivers, their brake systems, etc are all similar) So we need to find the answer choice that tells us that they are not similar and you can't compare accident rates of the big trucks to the little trucks and make a generalization.

A) This choice doesn't affect our argument at all.(We are talking about highway deaths not accidents on smaller roads)

B) This choice is correct because it gives us the difference between the big trucks and the little trucks. Only the best, most experienced drivers drive the big trucks. Less experienced drivers drive the little trucks. So the reason the big trucks are involved in fewer accidents is because of the ace drivers.Increasing the number of triple trucks would mean having less experienced drivers drive the big ones. That wouldn't help Partoria at all.

C) So? A truck hitting a car is still an accident. It still causes deaths. This answer choice doesn't weaken the argument at all. I think it just gives us some unnecessary information.

D) Safety record has improved slightly. Ok yes, good to know. Its obviously not improved enough to stop highway accidents. This does not weaken our argument.

E) I got bored halfway through this sentence. Legal payload? Where did that come from? Our argument never once mentions payload.

I hope this helps.

If anyone can come up with a nicer/simpler explanation, I would love to know. I think I sometimes get my reasoning all wonked.