In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were
Why this is right
On the surface, this answer seems similar to (D), but this answer choice is saying something our common sense already knew. This answer is saying, "Most citizens who died in an accident weren't wearing a seat belt during the accident." Choice (D) is saying, "Most citizens in this city don't wear their seat belts when in a car, even when the law requires it". This latter one helps explain why the seatbelt law hasn't done anything to reduce fatalities. How does a seat belt law reduce fatalities? Well, our common sense would tell us, it's supposed to force more people to wear seat belts than would otherwise be wearing seat belts. (D), however, says that the law doesn't actually force more people to wear their belts while driving. How does wearing a seat belt reduce fatalities? Again, common sense knows that when you're not wearing a seat belt, an accident can throw you straight into your windshield, whereas when you're wearing a seat belt, you are way less likely to die, because it keeps you in your seat. In other words, we already know that when people are wearing seat belts they're way less likely to die in an accident. That's why we mandate seat belts. Hence, we already know what this answer is saying --- the people who die in car accidents weren't wearing their seat belts. That was true before and it's still true now. Before the seat belt law was enacted, the people (voluntarily) wearing belts weren't likely to die in accidents. The people not wearing their belts were likely to die. Thus, most of the deaths were from people who weren't wearing belts. Even if the seat belt law causes tons more people to start wearing seat belts, it will still be true that the people wearing belts are unlikely to die and the people not wearing belts are likely to die.
Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.