Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at the prompt. Basically, we’re told that light utility trucks look tough, but are exempt from certain car-safety standards. Thus, the argument concludes that if those cars (the light utility trucks) are involved in an accident, then a driver is more likely to be injured than a driver of a car that is subject to the standards.
Now we’re asked for an assumption the argument depends on; in either words, this is a necessary assumption question. Remember that for these, if we can negate the answer choice and the argument still stands, then the assumption isn’t necessary and we can eliminate it. With that in mind, let’s take a look at (C), which tells us that light utility trucks are more likely to be involved in accidents that result in injuries. Let’s negate this: light utility trucks are not more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries. Does the argument still stand? Yes! The conclusion tells us that if the truck is in a serious high-impact accident, then the driver will more likely be injured; whether or not trucks are more likely to be involved in those kinds of accidents is irrelevant to this statement, because it only concerns itself with what happens if one of those serious high-impact accidents happens. Whether or not light utility trucks are more or less likely to get into those kinds of accidents doesn’t affect what happens if those accidents happens, and so (C) isn’t necessary and we can eliminate it.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
