This is the wrong flaw. (A) fails to consider that risks from different sources can add up; but in this case, the risks are applying to the same subject (test pilots). By contrast, the flaw in the stimulus is appealing to largely unrelated problems (e.g. cyclist deaths vs. pedestrian deaths) to justify inaction.

(B) argues against taking action (requiring safety goggles) to solve a problem. The reasoning is that there are other, bigger problems (like contagious diseases) that no one has suggested taking drastic action to solve.

This is the same flawed reasoning as the stimulus: just because there are other, unrelated problems doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address this particular problem.

If this argument is flawed, it’s the wrong flaw. (C) presents arguments relevant to the proposal (teaching first years foreign languages) at hand. By contrast, the stimulus appealed to irrelevant issues to justify rejecting a proposed cahnge.

This argument is not clearly flawed, unlike the stimulus. The upcoming replacement of the trucks is relevant to the proposal to update their communication systems. By contrast, the other issues raised in the stimulus were irrelevant to the proposal to mandate that cyclists wear helmets.

If this argument is flawed, it’s the wrong flaw. Whether any cases of the disease have been reported is relevant to how efficient testing for it is. By contrast, the stimulus introduced other issues that were irrelevant to the proposal at hand.