Wrong flaw. There could be many reasons why there are few and unserious driving accidents in West Ansland—maybe people don’t drive very often—so we can’t conclude that most drivers there are safe, given the information presented. But this isn’t the same flaw as the one in the stimulus: it’s not a misunderstanding of the quantifier “most”.

No flaw. This is a valid argument: If you’re in John’s family and you don’t own a car, that means you can’t drive. John is in his family and he doesn’t own a car, so he can’t drive!

Wrong flaw. This ignores many possible scenarios—maybe Fernando’s friends walk to school because they want fresh air, or maybe they bike because they don’t have cars! But this isn’t the same flaw as the one in the stimulus: it’s not a misunderstanding of the quantifier “most”.

As shown below, this argument uses a chain of conditional claims, linked by the quantifier “most,” to conclude that most people in Highland County drive sedans. It relies on a flawed understanding of the quantifier “most,” though—just because most people in Highland commute to work and most people in the world who commute to work drive sedans, does not mean that most people in Highland drive sedans! It’s the same flaw from the stimulus!

No flaw. This is a valid argument! If most of Janine’s friends are people from whom she would accept a ride, and everyone from whom Janine would accept a ride is a good driver, then most of Janine’s friends must be good drivers.