Completely lost here

Hi, I think the issue here stems from the translation of the second sentence. We know that if not 2 then damaged, but this only applies to mail that was addressed correctly. I would think about this in terms of 100 letters that were correctly addressed. We are told that the vast majority of them are not damaged, so let's say 5 are damaged and arrive late, and 95 arrive on time. However, we also know that the majority of all letters are late. How can this be? We have to dig into the other kind of mail, improperly addressed mail. If there is more improperly addressed mail than there is properly addressed mail, this would make sense.

I am also lost here. It is stated in the passage that B is not a viable answer choice because the passage makes no mention of "incorrectly addressed mail". At the end of the answer explanation, C turns out to be the correct answer choice which makes mention of "incorrectly addressed mail. What is the deal???? Can someone please help with what I am missing? Thank you!

I ment to say, it "is stated in the lecture"

Good question! I think I should be more clear about why it's not b. The issue with b is that we know very little about the incorrectly addressed mail. In fact, the only thing that we can infer from the passage is that some incorrectly addressed mail must indeed exist. We can't really say anything about this incorrect mail other than that it exists however, so we have no way of knowing if any of it arrives on time. However, we do know that since at least half of the mail is late, and that only a small amount of mail is correct and late, the majority of this late mail (so at least 26 percent) must have been addressed incorrectly.