Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements, including

Hey, let me know if this helps - because the question already gave accident per km, knowing more or fewer kms wouldn't help. We want to know potential reasons that would explain the numerator - accidents. Roads being more dangerous helps explain why there are more accidents. If the premise gives us more total accidents, then knowing there are more kms would help explain.

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:


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.