Traffic safety experts predict that the installation of newly designed

It cannot be E as it is out of scope.
Because the question stem asks about challenge to DOT's proposal but the statement E talks about automobile dealer's profit.

Pre-thinking:

Conclusion:In order to save lives, the Department of Transportation (DOT) is considering requiring automobile manufacturers to install air bags of this design in all cars produced after 1998.

In other words, "requiring automobile manufacturers to install air bags of this design in all cars produced after 1998" will "save lives".

Premises: Traffic safety experts predict that the installation of newly designed air bags in all cars in the United States would reduce the average number of fatalities per traffic accident by 30 percent.

The question asks us to weaken the argument, hence we are looking for that answer option that will throw doubts on the saving of lives by this method. Let us analyze the answer options:

(A) Air bags of the new design are more given to being inadvertently triggered, an occurrence that can sometimes result in fatal traffic accidents. Correct answer. This brings the possibility of increased fatalities due to the newly designed airbags, thus throwing question marks on whether lives will be saved.

(B) The DOT is planning to require automobile manufacturers to produce these air bags according to very strict specifications. This does not doubt the saving of lives. Eliminate.

(C) After installing air bags in new cars, automobile manufacturers will experience an increase in sales. This does not doubt the saving of lives. Eliminate.

(D) The proposed air bag installation program will adversely affect the resale of cars manufactured prior to 1998. This does not doubt the saving of lives. Eliminate.

(E) As production costs increase, the profits of many domestic automobile dealers show a marked decrease. This does not doubt the saving of lives. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

Why not C?
In the text, the experts said that 30% of lives can be saved, then, we can infeer that more lives will be saved than lives will be lost by the instalation of the airbags.
The increase of sales would result in a greater number of cars, and then, a greater number of accidents.

how does it affects that sometimes airbag comes out abruptly and led to serious fatalities, when its already mentioned that overall fatalities will be 30% less. Doesnt the premise negate option A?

Hi Praful

The stimulus does not state that "overall fatalities will be 30% less" as you have put it. The stimulus states that the new airbags would "reduce the average number of fatalities per traffic accident by 30 percent". This is talking about the conditional probability of fatality given that an accident occurs.

Option (A) talks about a situation where the new airbags will be "inadvertently triggered" ie; without an accident. So while the new airbags would reduce fatalities when accidents occur, they will also cause accidents of their own, which may increase overall fatalities (at least, there will be more fatalities than the reduced 70% number would suggest). Hence this option challenges the DOT's reasoning and proposal.

Hope this clarifies.

because E shows challenges faced by Automobile industry and not DOT. challenges of automobile industry is of no concern to DOT.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.