The World Automobile Association (WAA) publishes a list of

Ok. So we need to vote in support of the WAA ranking.
A --> Makes sense and is an pssbl objection.
B --> Makes sense and is an pssbl objection.
C --> Distance correlated to accidents? Park
D --> Makes sense and is an pssbl objection.
E --> No. of Passengers correlated to accidents? Park

So C and E are possible answer choices. C is more logical to me as distance correlation to accidents is far fetched.

On C I had other thoughts. Since the rating is death/mile, so it may be the case that a more densly populated country has lesser miles per person(say Country A) than a sparsely populated country(Country B). Hence, if the ratings are compared the percentage of deaths in terms of population would be less in Country A but because it has less number of miles than country B it the rating will give more deaths per mile in country A. Isnt this reasoning right?

The argument states that the amount of traffic deaths per mile driven is used to rank drivers. The question is asking which statement does not offer an objection to using that as a ranking. So we should expect to see four statements which show that comparing traffic deaths on a per mile driven basis does not accurately measure the population ability and one that shows that it does or is irrelevant. A,B, D, E all go against the using driving deaths per mile driven, since they show there are other elements that are not equal across the countries. C however says that countries have different amount of roads. If you are comparing deaths per mile driven, total miles of roads should not effect this, since more miles would be balanced out by more deaths. Again, this was an except question and C provides that exception we were looking for.

Any kudos are greatly appreciated.

(A) The roads in some countries are in bad repair and are therefore more dangerous than roads in other countries.
This gives us reason to strengthen the fact drivers skill isn't the no 1 criteria therefore out

(B) The average driver in industrialized countries can afford to maintain his or her car in better condition than can the average driver in less developed countries.
If the cars are in better conditions then the drivers skills are the prime factor therefore out

(C) Some countries contain hundreds of thousands of miles of road while other countries contain relatively few miles of road.
The icrease in length shouldn't affect the skill of the driver therefore let us hang on to it

(D) Minor accidents that would cause little injury in many countries are often fatal when they occur in extremely mountainous countries.
THis is an objection it's not the drivers fault but rather the roads that's causing all the damage therefore out

(E) Because of differences in national economies, the average car in some
countries contains many more passengers than does the average car in other countries.
THis too adds to the fact that some drivers may cause serious to many passangers and dropping the overall ratings of the country therefore out


THerefore IMO C

Don't understand how C is right (i.e. it doesn't weaken the argument)

I feel it weakens the argument quite a lot. In a case where both the countries have equal number of deaths (say-100). The country with larger distance of roads will have less death miles travelled.