When car manufacturers place a high priority on generating large profi

But "The car manufacturers with the highest profits also place a high priority on generating large profits" -  This statement weakens the argument. If profitable manufacturers prioritize profits, it contradicts the idea that they should focus less on profits for safety. Then how come this is the right answer. Wherein, "When car manufacturers reduce their priority on generating large profits, their profits actually increase" - This statement supports the argument by suggesting that focusing less on profits can lead to higher profits. If manufacturers prioritize safety, they may attract more customers and build trust, ultimately boosting profits. 

Niharika8

Careful--you're not addressing the argument. Our job is not to help car manufacturers. The argument is just saying that manufacturers should do something (decrease emphasis on profits) to lead to a result that the AUTHOR wants (improved safety). This has nothing to do with whether profits are good or manufacturers should find ways to increase them. The focus is just on how to get more safety.

It might help to think of this as a policy recommendation made by someone in government. Imagine that they want us to STOP manufacturers from prioritizing profit, because they want to improve safety. At no point do the actual manufacturers or their interests need to be considered.

I simply don't understand how option E can be the answer to this, it is not even addressing the safety issue

"Car manufacturers should be less concerned with generating large profits in order to improve car safety."

This is the main argument of the passage. It states in simpler terms that 'In order to improve car safety don't prioritize profit generation'

I do not see how E is the answer since it has nothing to do with car safety.

C seems like the most obvious answer since a company that gives away large amounts to charity is clearly not prioritzing profit and they also make the safest cars. This shows us a pattern that completely aligns with the authors argument.

Guntabulla

C is relevant, but it's a Weaken, not a Strengthen. The author has assumed that because high profit is correlated with unsafe cars, then seeking profit must undermine safety. But if it's actually the case that safer manufacturers have low profits because they give to charity (and not because they, say, spend more on safety), then maybe it's not the case that profit-seeking undermines safety.

As I've said above, E is able to weaken without addressing safety because it is targeting a smaller assumption the author made: that companies with high profits are CONCERNED WITH making high profits. If this weren't true--if some manufacturers just happened to make a lot of money without trying--then it would be wrong to conclude that the manufacturers SHOULD BE less concerned. E fixes that gap, so it's a strengthen, even if it doesn't seem very important or central.