Can someone explain why C is wrong? I don't understand the reasoning for it. I think B is correct because if the amount of child passengers remain the same, then it indicates less deaths.
Oh yeah, that is kind of tricky. So I bet you’re thinking, well if the amount of time in the car has stayed the same, then that blocks the possibility that the stats are skewed because more time in a car means higher odds of an accident. That was my initial thought process anyway.
So the reason this doesn’t strengthen the argument is because the argument is really only concerned with the fact that accidents involving children have increased, without caring about why. Why the increase happened really has no bearing on the argument. Maybe it happened because there were more kids in cars for longer, or maybe because a law passed allowing 4 year olds to get drivers licenses. Doesn’t matter. The fact remains that there was a 10% increase, and that’s all that really matters for the argument.
Comments
So the reason this doesn’t strengthen the argument is because the argument is really only concerned with the fact that accidents involving children have increased, without caring about why. Why the increase happened really has no bearing on the argument. Maybe it happened because there were more kids in cars for longer, or maybe because a law passed allowing 4 year olds to get drivers licenses. Doesn’t matter. The fact remains that there was a 10% increase, and that’s all that really matters for the argument.