C vs. All other answers

@Sidra, Happy to help. Let's look at all of them. The conclusion of the lobbyist's argument is that automobile exhaust emissions are not a risk to public health. The lobbyist supports this claim by saying that even though exhaust emissions have increased over the last century, every indicator of public health improved a lot during the same time period. This argument is flawed because there are all sorts of reasons for why exhaust emissions could hurt human health even though people have been getting healthier over the last century. Perhaps there are other factors at play that made people healthier (advances in medicine, better nutrition, etc.). It's entirely possible that those factors have made people healthier despite the health risks that are created by automobile exhaust. We're looking for the answer with a similar flaw to that found in the stimulus. (A) says, "inspecting commercial airplanes for safety is unnecessary because the number of commercial airplane crashes has decreased over the last decade" The problem with (A) is that its conclusion says that inspecting commercial planes is unnecessary, whereas the argument in the stimulus never concludes that something is unnecessary. Rather, the argument in the stimulus concludes that something is not risky. If (A) had instead said that commercial airplanes aren't dangerous, then it would have been a better answer. Thus, (A) is out. (B) says, "smoking cigarettes is not bad for one’s health because not all cigarette smokers get smoking-related illnesses" The problem with (B) is that its premise isn't parallel to the premise of the argument in the stimulus. In (B), the premise is that not all cigarette smokers get smoking-related illnesses. For (B) to be correct, it would have had to say something like "the number of smoking-related illnesses has gone down," so we can get rid of this answer choice. (C) says, "using a cell phone while driving is not dangerous because the number of traffic accidents has decreased since the invention of the cell phone" (C)'s structure matches the stimulus really well. It's possible that using a cell phone while driving may still be dangerous even though the number of accidents has gone down. Perhaps cars on the road now have more safety features and we have better roadways, helping people to avoid accidents. There could be other factors that reduce the number of car accidents even though using a cell phone while driving is something that still increases the likelihood of a car accident, so this is how (C) matches the stimulus well. Thus, it's the correct answer choice. (D) says, "skydiving is not dangerous because the number of injuries to skydivers has decreased in recent years" The problem with (D) is that its premise is about how the number of injuries has decreased in recent years. In order for (D) to be correct, it would need to say that the number of injuries has decreased since skydiving first started, so we can get rid of this answer choice. (E) says, "people with insurance do not need to lock their doors because if anything is stolen the insurance company will pay to replace it" The part of (E)'s argument about the insurance company isn't parallel to the stimulus, as we would need a statement about how incidents of break-ins to cars have gone down, so we can get rid of (E). Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!