by christine.defenbaugh Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:55 pm
Some really great work here, WaltGrace1983!
First, I think you're absolutely correct to treat this as an "explain the discrepancy" question. In fact, I wouldn't bother with trying to ascertain any sort of 'conclusion' at all here, for exactly that reason. The sentence "me might infer...." is a little funky, because it backs off from actually making that inference directly.
So, exactly as you lay out, on the one side we have:
1)drivers anticipate pedestrians more at corners than elsewhere
1a) maaaaaybe that means crossing at a corner is "safer"
and then on the other side of the weirdness coin:
2) MORE pedestrians die at corners
If we just take that possible inference at face value, a potential solution leaps into view: raw numbers vs. proportions, exactly as you point out!
(B) is tempting primarily because it hints at undermining that inference that crossing at a corner is actually safer, proportionally. The problem is that it's so soft and vague, it doesn't actually do the job.
If it said something like: ALL people jaywalk only when there is ZERO traffic. Well, okay then - maybe that would explain it. The drivers of the world are more likely to hit you jaywalking, BUT if people only ever jaywalk when there are no drivers anywhere around, then you've effectively eliminated that source of increased risk.
But (B) doesn't come anywhere near to being that helpful. It's only about 'some' jaywalkers, and it's only about 'little traffic'. Is that diminution of traffic enough to explain this? Meh? Are those 'some' jaywalkers enough to balance this out? Meh? It's all vague and rather unlikely.
Your reasoning for eliminating the remaining answers is golden!
(C) and (D) are all about the law - who cares?! What do people actually DO?!
And (E) just gives us information about GOOD drivers - presumably all the other drivers still have that anticipation problem that increases the risks for jaywalkers.
Keep up the great work!