According to the passage, the LRCWA's report recommended that contingency-fee agreements
bihaoqing@gmail.comon May 9, 2021
Question 9 E
Can anyone explain why answer choice E can be ruled out? The answer choice only states that teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers but it does not say whether the passengers are teenagers or not. However, the conclusion from the passage is saying teenagers compose 14% of the traffic fatalities. Therefore, I don't see how E is an alternate cause.
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
First, the conclusion of the passage is not what you have outlined above. The second sentence of the stimulus provides statistics which support the conclusion that "additional restrictions should be placed on driver's licenses of teenagers."
Second, the editorialist is not saying that 14% of traffic fatalities are teenagers. Rather, the editorialist says that teenagers are responsible for more than 14% of traffic fatalities and that this must mean that they lack basic driving skills.
Answer choice (E) provides an alternate explanation for this. Rather than lacking basic driving skills, it is possible that teenagers are responsible for a greater proportion of fatalities because they carry more people in their vehicles. This would mean that more people would be affected by each collision caused by a teenage driver, increasing the potential proportion of fatalities that teenagers are responsible for.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
