Q8 - On the basis of incontestable proof that

[akshay.nelakurti]

In this question, I narrowed it down to options B and E, and E was the right one.

Answer choice (B)- States that since the introduction of car safety seats, children are more likely to make automobile trips now. Wouldn't this also explain the discrepancy? If the number of trips taken by children increased in total, then the total number of children getting injured could increase even though the percentage of children getting injured decreases (number vs percentage).

Why is answer choice (E) better?

[ohthatpatrick]

I see where you're going with that. It's weird, but I think it probably comes down to the idea of "which answer choice, by itself, could explain the unexpected".

That's weird wording I've never seen before, and it becomes useful in thinking about (B) vs. (E).

(E) gives us the fact that many parents have failed to install the safety seats correctly, and that failing to do so negates the protection the seat was supposed to provide.

For (B), in order to explain the large number of kids getting injured, we need to also know that the uptick in kid-trips outweighs the extent to which the car seats make us safer.

(B) drifts towards a possible explanation but doesn't lock it in the way (E) does.

Finally, remember that the unexpected fact is not simply that
there are still lots of kids getting hurt in accidents
but also that
kids in car seats are sustaining injuries car seats were specifically designed to avoid ... that car seats have been PROVEN to avoid

Hope this helps.