This resolves the discrepancy by showing that the statistic is perfectly compatible with crossing at a corner being safer. The key is the difference between rate and total number. "Safer" is a claim about rate: any given pedestrian is less likely to die at a corner. But "more pedestrians die" is a claim about total number. A lower rate can still produce a higher total if far more people are doing it.

Crossing at a corner is far safer (1% vs. 25%), yet more people die at corners (10 vs. 5) simply because so many more people cross at corners. (A) shows us there's no real contradiction here. Crossing at a corner is safer for any individual pedestrian, but so many more people do it that the total number of deaths is higher.

This tries to explain the statistic by suggesting that some jaywalkers are careful, which might make jaywalking less dangerous than we'd expect. But we're not trying to challenge the claim that crossing at a corner is safer. The stimulus tells us crossing at a corner is safer, and we should accept that. What we need to explain is how more people can die at corners despite it being safer. (B) doesn't help with that. Even if some jaywalkers are cautious, someone who thinks "safer should mean fewer deaths" would still find the statistic puzzling.

Even if drivers are unfamiliar with jaywalking laws, it's not clear what follows from that. Maybe it means drivers don't know jaywalking is illegal, but how does that help explain why more pedestrians die at corners than while jaywalking? There's no direct connection between drivers' knowledge of jaywalking laws and the death statistics we're trying to explain.

Like (B), this is trying to suggest that jaywalking might not be as dangerous as we'd think, because drivers are still legally required to yield to jaywalkers. But that's not the kind of explanation we need. We're accepting that crossing at a corner is safer, and we want to understand how the death totals can still be higher at corners. (D) doesn't address the gap between rate and amount that's at the heart of the apparent discrepancy.

Like (B) and (D), this pushes in the direction of suggesting jaywalking isn't as dangerous as it seems, because good drivers watch out for jaywalkers just as much as they watch out for corner crossers. But even if that's true, we still need to explain how a safer activity (crossing at a corner) produces more total deaths. (E) doesn't do that. Someone confused about the statistics would still be confused after learning (E).