What does the argument state -
Installing devices --> Most accidents would be prevented.
A - irrelevant to the argument above. Whether the device can be installed by trained or untrained people has no bearing on its effectiveness.
B - not relevant. the argument talks about the effectiveness of those devices. The amount of experience they have is irrelevant.
C - correct answer. Let us assume a value for seldom - say 1%.
Only about 1% of the time does a driver need to exceed the speed limit to avoid an accident when others are not exceeding the speed limit. This basically says that you do not need to exceed the speed limit to avoid an accident when everyone else is going slow. Strengthens.
Negate this -
About 95% of the time a driver needs to exceed speed limit to avoid an accident when others are not exceeding the speed limit. -> Destroys the argument. Suggests that accidents cannot be avoided if you impose speed limits.
Also, notice that "when others are not exceeding the speed limit" is an important part of the assumption. This depicts a scenario in which "all cars" (read the argument again) have such devices installed. If some people do, then such a scenario does not describe the situation that the argument deals with. (Since all cars have such devices installed, none of them will exceed the speed limit).
D - Negate this option. Most drivers who exceed the speed limit do so intentionally. -> If they do so intentionally, it is high time that they be stopped. This negation clearly strengthens the argument. Incorrect.
E - "increasing fines" has no impact on the effectiveness of the strategy. The argument only talks about the effectiveness of the strategy to install devices in order to reduce accidents. We are NOT discussing the effectiveness of the strategy to impose higher fines on speeding drivers.
For 5 common traps on CR check here :
For sentence correction videos check here -
Learn all PS and DS strategies here-
For more info on GMAT and MBA, follow us on @AskCrackVerbal