A client contracted a private investigator to complete a background check of a potential appointee to a prestigious Board of Directors. With 10 different Directors and oversight over a multi-billion dollar multinational conglomerate, the Board is widely regarded as one of the most well connected and influential Directorships. The investigator found that the candidate had two speeding tickets. The client decided that the candidate was unfit to serve on the board because he was exceedingly reckless.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the client's rationale for not appointing the candidate?

A) The investigator found that the candidate had never been charged with any crimes or misdemeanors.

B) In the candidate's county, speeding tickets are issued on a daily basis.

C) Residents of the candidate's county receive an average of one speeding ticket over their lifetimes.

D) The investigator also located a newspaper article quoting the subject's former employee praising his boss.

E) The investigator found that at the candidate was found "not guilty" in a lawsuit charging him with domestic violence.
_________________

Though the quality of this question is suspect, here are my thoughts on it.

Two statements of interest:
The investigator found that the candidate had two speeding tickets.
The client decided that the candidate was unfit to serve on the board because he was exceedingly reckless.

From two speeding tickets, he gathered "exceedingly reckless". We need to weaken this.

A) The investigator found that the candidate had never been charged with any crimes or misdemeanors.
Irrelevant. We are talking about the client being reckless because of over speeding.

B) In the candidate's county, speeding tickets are issued on a daily basis.
Sure, it is possible that a few speeding tickets are given out every day. But considering the huge population a county can have, it is possible that most people never get a ticket. So two speeding tickets could be reckless.

C) Residents of the candidate's county receive an average of one speeding ticket over their lifetimes.
So residents on average do receive 1 ticket. This means it may be normal that rules are strict and people often end up getting a ticket. It does put into question "exceedingly reckless".

D) The investigator also located a newspaper article quoting the subject's former employee praising his boss.
Irrelevant. We are talking about the client being reckless because of over speeding.

E) The investigator found that at the candidate was found "not guilty" in a lawsuit charging him with domestic violence.
Irrelevant. We are talking about the client being reckless because of over speeding.

Answer (C)
_________________

Doesn't option C means that the candidate was >50% more reckless than the average population (PS: average of 1 ST is for lifetime and the candidate has not completed his lifetime)
>50% sounds exceedingly reckless?
Pl suggest