Q11 - Consumer Activist: When antilock

[noah]

This question presents a paradox: even though anti-lock brakes have reduced the number of multiple-car collisions, in order to save lives, car manufacturers should stop making cars with this feature. This is paradoxical because there is no explanation of how anti-lock brakes would endanger lives. (A) resolves this issue by providing a way in which the feature could lead to unsafe conditions.

(B) does not provide a reason that anti-lock brakes could be unsafe. The fact that other brakes work as well as anti-lock ones _ and only under some circumstances _ is irrelevant to the conclusion.
(C) does not resolve the paradox as it provides a reason why cars should be equipped with anti-lock brakes.
(D) is out of scope. The cost of brakes is irrelevant to their safety.
(E) is attractive in that it seems to suggest that anti-lock brakes are ineffective. However, (E) does not suggest that anti-lock brakes are ineffective; all (E) establishes is that anti-lock brakes are not more effective in preventing accidents other than those involving multiple cars. This may mean that anti-lock brakes are actually quite effective with these other accident types.