Can someone please explain this CR question, Iam not getting at all how conclusion is related here ..
In the United States, landowners are effectively insured against natural disasters because the government subsidizes all land repairs by providing emergency relief after natural disasters. This “subsidy” is a partial cause for the high percentage of houses built on disaster-prone lands because it gives owners no financial incentive to research whether the land on which they build their houses is secure against disaster, argues an actuary. If owners were more selective, then potential house sites would need to be safe before being developed.
The actuary’s argument makes which of the following assumptions?
A) Natural disasters are most costly when they strike large houses built close together.
B) A large percentage of landowners own several different lands across states.
C) The most careful site selection tends to be by owners building the more expensive houses.
D) The difference in the relief amounts paid to owners by different states has no major effect on site selection.
E) Potential builders can know which lands are secure against disaster.