#21 - Safety consultant: Judged by the number of injuries

[Adam Tyson]

Answer C is saying that minivans carry more passengers than other cars, which, in the case of a crash, might actually lead to more injuries per vehicle rather than less. But that does nothing to strengthen the claim about why there are fewer injuries per vehicle. It could be better drivers, or it could be some other cause like better handling or braking. It adds nothing, except perhaps to deepen the mystery of how they managed to do so well.

[fortunateking]

Still can't get why (C) is incorrect.
Premise: minivans' injuries are low
minivans don't offer better protect
Conclusion: they are driven by safe drivers.
I understand why (E) is correct, as it eliminates an alternative explanation. If the minivans have better manuverbility than other vehicles, it would hurt the conclusion that it's the drivers what make the difference.
Saying that, why wouldn't (C) also be correct for the same reason? I think (C) also hurts an alternative explanation, just like (E). If minivans tend to carry less passengers, no wonders their per vehicle injuries are low, even if volatile drivers are behind the wheels, there are simply less people on board!
Please help.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Answer choice (C) isn't about the specific causal relationship in the stimulus. Answer choice (C) is not about the causal comparison in the stimulus---safety v low-risk driving. The number of passengers is irrelevant to determining if the safety of the vehicle or the safety of the driver is more likely the cause of the low injury numbers. There is a lot of missing information in this argument---number of miles driven by these cars, people in the cars, and so on. But we want to strengthen the specific relationship given: It's not the inherent safety of the cars, but the safety of the drivers. Our answer choice should address one of those two causes, which is what answer choice (E) does.