Bunuel wrote:
Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements, including required use of seat belts and annual safety inspections, have on average higher rates of accidents per kilometer driven than do provinces and states with less stringent requirements. Nevertheless, most highway safety experts agree that more stringent requirements do reduce accident rates.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the safety experts’ belief with the apparently contrary evidence described above?
A. Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.
B. Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
C. The roads in provinces and states with stringent car safety programs are far more congested and therefore dangerous than in other provinces and states.
D. Psychological studies show that drivers who regularly wear seat belts often come to think of themselves as serious drivers, which for a few people discourages reckless driving.
E. Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads then do other provinces and states.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The paradox in the argument is that the provinces and states that have more stringent safety requirements also have higher average rates of accidents. Even so, experts agree that the more stringent requirements actually are effective. This type of “surprisingly low/high rate of success” scenario has appeared in a number of Resolve the Paradox questions, including the following:
An anti-theft device is known to reduce theft, but cars using the anti-theft device are stolen at a higher rate than cars without the device.
Explanation: The device is placed on highly desirable cars that are prone to being stolen, and the device actually lessens the rate at which they are stolen.
A surgeon has a low success rate while operating, but the director of the hospital claims the surgeon is the best on the staff.
Explanation: The surgeon operates on the most complex and challenging cases.
A bill collector has the lowest rate of success in collecting bills, but his manager claims he is the best in the field.
Explanation: The bill collector is assigned the toughest cases to handle.
These scenarios underscore the issue present in the question: other factors in the situation make it more difficult to be successful. With the car safety requirements, you should look for an answer that shows that there is a situation with the roads that affects the accident rates. A second possible explanation is that the seat belts are not actually used by a majority of drivers and the safety inspections are not made or are rubber-stamp certifications. This answer is less likely to appear because it is fairly obvious.
Answer choice (A): The stimulus specifies that annual safety inspections—regardless of what is examined—are already in place. Therefore, this answer does not explain why the average rate of accidents is higher in those states.
Answer choice (B): Assuming that overconfidence leads to accidents, the answer could support the assertion that states with more stringent requirements have higher accident rates. But, this answer would also suggest that the experts are wrong in saying that more stringent standards reduce accident rates, so this answer cannot be correct.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer, and the answer conforms to the discussion above. If the roads are generally more dangerous, then the stringent requirements could reduce the accident rate while at the same time the accident rate could remain relatively high. Since this scenario allows all sides of the situation to be correct and it explains how the situation could occur, this is the
correct answer.
Answer choice (D): This answer supports only one side of the paradox. The answer confirms that the experts are correct, but it does not explain why these provinces have higher accident rates. Thus, as explained in the second sidebar on page 293, it does not resolve the paradox.
Answer choice (E): This answer appears attractive at first, but the number of miles of roadway in the provinces is irrelevant because the stimulus specifically references “accidents per kilometer driven.” Since the accident rate is calculated as per-miles-driven, the actual number of miles of roadway is irrelevant.