City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Conclusion: we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety


(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
Not quite relevant

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
It does not matter if the individual is different from the driver as long as the accidents are related to parallel parking.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
Correct. If parallel parking is only negligible in states without the requirement, the accidents will also be lower. And this would weaken the argument. However, if parallel parking is a significant portion of parking in those states, then the argument is strengthened.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
This statement is not specific to states with or without the parallel parking requirement. So, even in states where parallel parking is required for licensing exams, this statement would imply that the % is more than 7%. So not needed to evaluate the argument.

Answer should be D.

Posted from my mobile device

Note 1: Evaluate the Argument questions ask us to select the question that best help determine the logical validity of the argument presented in the stimulus. Question stem examples: evaluate the argument / evaluate the line of reasoning / assess the hypothesis in the passage / judge the conclusion of the argument.

Note 2: In this type questions the information in the stimulus is suspect, so we should search for the reasoning error present. Please note that we are not being asked to prove with finality whether the argument is good or bad – rather, we must simply ask the question that will best help analyze the argument’s validity.

Note 3: The answer choices are accepted as given, even if they include “new” information.

Note 4: We need to apply the Variance Test by supplying polar opposite responses to the question posed in the answer choice and then analyzing how the subsequent results affect the conclusion in the stimulus. If different responses produce different effects on the conclusion, then the answer choice is correct. If different responses do not produce different effects, then the answer choice is incorrect.

The above notes are from PowerScore CR Bible. Keeping them in mind, let’s analyze our question.

City official’s conclusion: Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking (PP) element of the test.

City official’s line of reasoning: ...because PP is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Evidence: States without PP have fewer PP related incidents than states with PP have.

As Note 2 says, we need to be suspicious of the stimulus and question it – Is it good or bad if we remove PP testing just because the official claims that it is counterproductive? Did he correctly draw his conclusion from the above evidence? What if he overlooked some nuances? As Note 1 says, the question in the correct answer choice will be similar to these ones. Let’s use the Variance Test to analyze official’s conclusion in the light of answer choices, as Note 4 says:

A. Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element

This answer choice asks whether states without PP testing had such testing before. To apply the Variance Test, we should supply opposing answers to the question in A and see whether the conclusion is weakened or strengthened. First we say YES, these states before had such testing. Does this information strengthen or weaken the line of reasoning (PP is clearly counterproductive)? I think, No. Now let’s answer NO, these states didn’t have such testing. Once again, we cannot find out whether PP testing indeed counterproductive in line of this info. Hence, A should be incorrect. The application of the Variance Test to B, C, and E will also give similar results.

D. Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking

Let’s first say YES and then NO to C and see whether official’s line of reasoning or conclusion is strengthened or weakened.
Do many people use PP in states without PP testing? YES. If indeed many people use PP and still PP accidents are less common, then states without PP testing did a good job by removing such testing. Correspondingly, states with PP testing should get rid of such testing because it doesn’t prove to be productive. As we see, the conclusion is strengthened because official’s line of reasoning becomes valid.

Do many people use PP in states without PP testing? NO. Instead of PP many people use other type of parking. Now everything changes. If indeed few people use PP in states without PP testing, then accidents due to PP must be less common not because PP is counterproductive, but because only few people use PP. Thus official’s conclusion is weakened because his line of reasoning becomes invalid. Clearly, D help us evaluate official’s line of reasoning.

Hence D

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

Analysis:
Cause --> effect
City-A: parallel parking in driving test ---> 7% accident related to parallel parking
City-B: no parallel parking in driving test ---> ~0 accident related to parallel parking
Conclusion by City Official: parallel parking should be removed from driving test in City-A
Which case it should not remove the parallel parking from driving test?
case-1: if two city's parkings aren't similar i.e city-B doesn't have many parallel parkings, but city-A has, then removing parallel parking from city-B's driving test might increase the parallel parking related accident

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element --> we can't conclude from this that city-B should remove the parallel parking from driving test
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision --> this should be the case for both the cities
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park --> this should be the case for both the cities
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking --> correct: matches w/ the analysis
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities --> reporting to the authorities is not the concern

IMO-D

States
1)Where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams-
Stats- Accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%

2)where parallel parking is not required element of driver licensing exams
Stats- Negligible number of parallel parking related incidents

Conclusion (City Officials)-parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety---So be removed

Reasoning is based on--- Comparison between the two type of states and number of accidents.

Pre Thinking-- What if state where parallel parking is not required element doesn't have significant portion of parking as parallel parking. in that cases no. of accidents reported in these will be lower & that will weaken the line of reasoning (comparison between the two states) used by official..


(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element--- Incorrect---whether previously parallel parking element was present or not doesn't effect the line of reasoning.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision---Incorrect--- Time reference immaterial to conclusion.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park--- Incorrect---- though a good choice, but not a part of reasoning as stated in prethinking.
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking-- Correct-- Along the line of prethinking.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities----Incorrect---Not related to line of reasoning...same case can be for both states

conclusion:
Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Premise:
City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents.

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
Although this strengthen the argument but it is insuffice to use as evaluation whether to remove the parallel parking element.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
This is not relevant to parallel parking, even if it is relevant, the poor conditions will affect both parallel parking and non- parallel parking. -Irrelevent-

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
We are refering to cases of drivers involve in the parallel parking and not others individuals. -Out of Scope-

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
what if most of the parkings in these not-required states do not use the parallel-parking system?
Clearly, the situation will then be different for both states.
Therefore, we need to evaluate the number of parallel-parking system that are use in these not-required states.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
The scope should be limited within the provided data of 7% as stated in the premise.

D wins.

The argument's conclusion is based on causality that the test is causing these accidents. ( Casually speaking)
Now, the argument simply compares this to another city where there is no test and no accident.
Basically here, we need to challenge the test. So how possibly can we challenge the test, in light of given information that in a city where there is no test of parking no accident is there?

What if the city in which parking test is not there but parking exists and still the accident is NEGLIGIBLE, our belief gets bolstered that there is something in the test that is leading to these accidents. On the other hand, in the other city, the parallel parking itself is not present then obviously in that city there is NO parallel parking, then reasoning the conclusion on the basis that in other city if there is no parking test there is negligible accident becomes QUESTIONABLE.
So our answer should revolve around this scenario.

A. The basis of the argument is about current context. This option would have been valid and useful if we knew about the accident rates in the past. But no such information is given, so knowing whether it was revoked or not would not help evaluate. ELIMINATE this answer.

B. I had a doubt regarding "related accidents". But even if we assume that it is parallel-parking related accidents, then it is applicable to BOTH the countries. When we say that THESE ACCIDENTS occured WHEN there was DIM light and drivers could not see properly, then we draw a correlation, which might be thought of a CONTRIBUTING cause. The causality of the test and the accidents is not questioned.
Also the related accidents could be "parking-related" accidents. If that is the case, we clearly can eliminate this because the scope of the argument is parallel parking related accidents.

Even if we apply VARIANCE test and say that primarily they occured during day. So we eliminate a cause, then we have a belief that it could be because of these tests, and if we say YES, it happened during night, then also our claim is strengthened because the night factor is constant, and both place will have it.

C. This is also not our answer, however I was stuck at this for a while, because this option says that the driver was ATTEMPTING the parallel parking. Now there could again be two causes to the accident here- 1) The driver himself/herself was at fault 2) The faulty test could have led to it ( because we know that the test's country has higher rate). Since, this option still does not question the causality of the test, we can ignore this.

D - This is possibly the answer. Because we know that in a country where test is NOT there and yet people park and still the accidents are negligible, then it gives us a sort of belief that the test might have caused. And if they don't park parallely, then obviiously the accidents would be negligible. Then saying that the test is not valid is a bit questionable. Based on this reasoning, I marked this answer. I HOPE I AM CORRECT

E. Even if they are not, per the reasoning the causality stands. And if it is, well the causality is strengthened. This option fails the variance test. So I eliminated it.

Regards,
Rishav

Summary - In states where PP is part of licensing exams accidents resulting from improper PP is nearly 7%, whereas other states have a negligible number of PP incidents. Is PP in exams counter productive?

Prethinking - First is PP Required in other states, If not required due to better parking space then such accidents will not occur itself and will present a wrong picture

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element -
Will not help us determine if PP was counterproductive, information on accidents % during the period when test contained it and % during the period it was removed is required here

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision -
No information to help decide if PP was counterproductive as even poor lighting is not an excuse

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park-
No information to help decide if PP was counterproductive as we are talking about the number of accidents and not who's fault.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking - Correct, in line with Prethinking. If no PP is required in other states then comparison is wrong.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
If PP accidents are not reported then what % and in which states (where PP is part of test or Not) is required do make sense.

Answer : D

In order to evaluate the argument we need to know why the states which do not have parallel parking element in exams have no/negligible accidents. To answer this question, we need to know if those drivers are parallel parking or not. D actually tells this part. Rest of the answers are wrong due to the reason indicated.

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element Out of scope
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision talks about how accidents occur, not relevant
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park --> cannot evaluate the statement using this alone
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities This talks about number, which is out of scope

Reasoning: to evaluate the line of reasoning of the argument, we need to get a feature of the argument which relates directly to the number of accidents and follows the variance test.

What is variance test? --> Taking the option to either extremes (+ve or -ve), validates or invalidates the arugment at the extremes.

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element --> Out of scope. It does not matter if the parallel parking element of the exam was previously present in the test or not. What matters is how the presence or absence of this element in the test influences the number of accidents related to parallel parking.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision. --> Out of scope. It does not matter if poor lighting lead to accidents. What matters is the accidents occured or not.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park. --> Might be true. But this does not influence the reasoning at all. It does not matter who it was. What matters is how the element of the test influenced the number of accidents.
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking. --> Correct. This is spot on. If there are no or minimal parallel parking spots in a state, then it does not make sense to test that skill and hence also the number of accidents will be minimal for that reason. On the contrary states with many parallel parking spots should test this skill and also there is a chance of accidents for this reason. The variance test holds true with this option at both extremes.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities. --> Out of scope. Does not matter. Whether all incidents are reported or not, whatever is reported gives us the numbers as stated in the paragraph.

[u]premise: parallel parking test cities --> more parallel parking accidents
conclusion :[/u] no parallel parking test cities --> less parallel parking accidents

To evaluate the reasoning behind this comparison, we should be searching for information confirming the Analogy between the two cases/cities.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element.
so what? This information is useless by itself because the reason for these cities to remove the parallel parking element will be still unknown.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision.
irrelevant!! the same evening comes to the two cities, so what is the difference?? we can't assume that the lights in one city is poor compared with that of the other city unless explicitly mentioned.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park.
This complicates the reasoning!!: how trained/tested drivers are making more mistakes than untrained/untested counterparts??

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
This destroys the analogy : because comparing the first city with another that rarely has parallel parking is a misleading comparison, and explains that there is few parallel parking accidents because there is few parallel parking from the start.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
Tempting, but out of scope: the author was not comparing the reported accidents in the two cities, but facts that we must accept as true. Plus, we can't assume that accidents are appropriately reported in one city more than the other.

D

In such cases, when we are asked to evaluate, we have to think about assumptions, ways to weaken or strengthen the argument

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
Irrelevant information, it's not important what those states did in the past, we want to evaluate and discuss the current situation in which states with and without parallel parking element of the exam plays a role in parking accidents

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
Again irrelevant, poor lightning might also obstruct the driver's vision in states without parking element.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
This is for both cases. We can neither strengthen nor weaken the argument

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
Yep. This is an assumption, if we want to compare states by accident rates, we have to assume that a significant portion of parking is parallel parking

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
"Yes" to this question does not change anything, as well as "NO". Based on this information it's hard to say anything about the argument

IMO
Ans: D

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?


Understanding of Argument
-States where parallel parking is requirement for driver licensing exam has higher percentage of accidents, whereas the states that do not have have parallel parking requirement has negligible accidents.
- Based on it, city officials conclude that parallel parking element should be removed.

Understanding of Question:
-Question ask to evaluate the reasoning (i.e the conclusion )derived by City official.

-For evaluate question we need to identify the information, which made available will help to evaluate the conclusion.That information if made available will either strengthen or weaken the argument that Parallel parking element should be removed from exam or not .

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
-This does not help to evaluate because we are concerned with accidents percentage which is negligible in those state without parallel parking. Hence Eliminate A- This information is not helpful in evaluating.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
-Timing of accidents diverts us to reasons for accidents happening. Our goal is to evaluate the Parallel parking element in the licensing exam and accidents percentage.Not other causes for accidents.-Eliminate B

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
-Again like B , this also gives us makes us think about other reasons for accidents.Irrelevant in evaluating ,Eliminate C

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking

CORRECT- This information can help evaluate the conclusion of city official to remove the parallel parking element from licensing exam.Because IF YES this states which do not have parallel parking element in exam has significant parallel parking -it supports the conclusion .
IF No then it weakens the conclusion. Thus this information regarding the parallel parking helps us evaluate the conclusion.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
Irrelevant information. Eliminate E

Dream it ! Achieve It

Here the assumption in deriving the conclusion is that the non- requirement of parallel parking exam is the reason for negligible accidents in states where the exam is not necessary.


Even if this were true, at least some drivers would still be required to undergo the test and may result in some percentage of accidents.


This is irrelevant. Poor lighting can affect all the states.


This is irrelevant as well. Because, at least in some cases, the accident could happen due to improper parking.


Yes, if the significant portion of the parking in such states is not parallel parking, then the rate accidents would be negligible. Hence this is required to evaluate the reasoning.


This is irrelevant as well such cases could happen in both the types of states.

Few states have parallel parking as a required element of driver licensing exam, while others do not.
In the states where parallel parking is a necessary element in tests, have 7% accidents due to improper parking. Whereas, the numbers are negligible in the other states.

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
This does not prove that removing the parallel parking element of the exam decreases the parallel parking-related accidents.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
All states, whether they have a parallel parking element in the test, should suffer from the same fate in that case.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
Does that mean that those who are attempting to parallel park are drivers without driving license of the state? (as state driving license requires parallel park test). Again, all states have an equal chance of being affected.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
This does make sense. If in the states without parallel parking element, a significant number of parking is not parallel parking, then the number of accidents related to it will obviously be less.
Knowing the answer to this will help evaluate the line of reasoning of the city official.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
In which state? If it is in general then all states are equally impacted.

Answer D

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Premise: In states where parallel parking is required element of drive licensing exams, the percent of accidents is higher than in states without this requirement.
Conclusion: We should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
There is no mention how recent that change was. Answer (Y/N) may provide some hint but is not sufficient. Incorrect
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
This is clearly out of scope. Incorrect.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
This also seems out of scope since it may not be possible that in one state incidents are because of individual's fault and in another state, they are not. Incorrect.
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
It seems correct since parallel parking incidents will require significant portion of parkings to be parallel parkings. If parallel parkings are insignificant, then number of incidents will also reduce. If answer is NO, then clearly number of incidents will not be based on exam but will depend on insignificant number of parallel parkings Correct
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
It seems out of scope since even if all parallel parking-related accidents are not reported to the authorities, it will not distort remaining data to such extent that premise and conclusion are affected. Incorrect.

IMO D

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

The conclusion of the argument is that Parallel parking element of the test should be removed as it is counterproductive to driver safety. To evaluate the claim we need Either strong reasoning that Yes the parallel parking is unsafe or Strong evidence that the reasoning used for other state is not valid for this state.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element but later removed the element
This statement is trying to disprove the evidence presented by the author, but taken to the extremes it strengthens the argument cause it could mean that yes They removed the parallel parking exam and now the accident rate is negligible. Incorrect.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
This is incorrect as it could be valid for all the states.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
This is incorrect as it could be valid for all the states and drivers of all the states.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
Yes, this is the correct choice. It questions the evidence used by the author. Taken to extremes it shall disprove the claim made by the author cause if the state doesn't have parallel parking then obviously they cannot be compared. If the significant portion has parallel parking then the authors reasoning is correct, cause compared states are similar.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
This again is incorrect as this could be valid for both the states.

The answer is D.

States having parallel parking requirement in exams -> have higher percent of accidents when from improper parallel parking. states that do not have parallel parking requirement -> have negligible number of parallel parking incidents.
hence remove parallel parking requirement in exams to eliminate the accidents as it is counter productive to drivers.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
its referring to the states where there are negligible incidents from parallel parking, whether those had a element of parallel parking and then removed. even if they had, how does it impact the conclusion for states with that element..

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
If we take this into consideration for states with PP element, then i have to assume for ALL states. Thats a bit far stretched assumption.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
The answer to this question is given in the argument. yes, percent of accidents resulting from improper PP is ....

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
city official certainly is considering 7% is higher. so unless this unstated assumption is true and if he is not comparing with the equivalent portion with states without PP then his conclusion with fall...keep the answer

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
if we consider this for states with PP elements, it should also be considered for states without PP... so bit far..

D is the closest