The state legislature has proposed a law that required all new cars

Could be E. Since the basis of the auto industry person is wrong if the majority of the cars on the road are without airbags. He doesn’t know what airbags statistics will be.

Posted from my mobile device

The argument we have to weaken is "the airbags would prevent only a small percentage of serious injuries because in most accidents, serious injuries can be avoided by the use of seatbelts."

We have to find some new information from the answer choices which decreases the belief that airbags prevent only a small percentage of serious injuries

A) No effect on the argument
B) Number of accidents don't have relation with injuries
C) This option strengthen the auto industry argument
D) What if even we provide seatbelts leads to higher injuries if the person doesn't wear it=> led to serious injuries which can be prevented by airbags=> Correct Option
E) No effect on argument

IMO, Correct Option is D)

B

Since it states that the number of accidents in the state is higher, it means an extra precaution like airbags can help reduce injuries in such cases.

Official Explanation

Step 1: Identify the Question Type
From the question stem, we know not only that we are to weaken the argument but also that the argument will be “put forth by the auto industry.”

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
The auto industry’s conclusion is a prediction that airbags would prevent only a small percentage of serious injuries. The evidence for this is signaled by the word “because”: In most accidents, serious injuries can be avoided by the use of seat belts. Note: Neither the legislature nor the laws are anywhere in our conclusion or evidence, so they will only be associated with wrong choices. This is why it helps to read the question stem as closely and carefully as possible.

Step 3: Predict the Answer
Both the evidence and the conclusion use the phrase “serious injuries,” so there’s no scope shift there. Thus, the question that needs answering is whether cars need airbags to prevent these serious injuries. The auto industry says no, because seat belts can protect most people. But in order to be protected by a seat belt, a person must wear a seat belt. (Compare that with an airbag, which works even when the driver of a car irresponsibly fails to protect himself.) The industry never gives us any statistics about the percentage of people who buckle up; that most people wear seat belts is a necessary assumption. To weaken the argument, find a statement that suggests that people don’t really wear them.

Step 4: Evaluate the Choices
Only (D) suggests that people are not consistently wearing their seat belts, so it’s an ideal weakener. (A) and (E) talk about government or laws, which would put those choices outside the scope of the argument. (B) tells us that this state has a disproportionately high number of accidents, but without a connection to seat belts or airbags, (B) is outside the scope. (C) is also outside the scope: The auto industry doesn’t predict anything about profits or costs; the only prediction is about the airbags’ ability to prevent serious injuries. Choice (D) is the correct answer.