Wrong flaw. This assumes that because a situation has improved, no further effort is needed to continue improving it. The stimulus attempts to negate a negative causal relationship with a positive correlation.

Wrong flaw. To prove that smoking is not harmful, (B) cites exceptional examples of smokers who are not harmed by smoking. Rather than citing an exception to a general rule, the stimulus cites a correlation.

This commits a causation-correlation fallacy. (C) attempts to use a negative correlation (cell phone use has increased while accidents have decreased) to negate a causal relationship (using a cell phone while driving is not dangerous).

Wrong flaw. (D) cites a relative change (skydiving injuries have decreased) to make an absolute claim (skydiving is not dangerous). Skydiving may still be dangerous even if it’s not as risky as it used to be.

(E) lacks a causal conclusion. The answer choice we’re looking for needs a premise about two things being correlated (which would be, what... robberies and insurance companies paying??) and a conclusion about how one thing doesn’t cause the other (that bit is completely absent).