To critically evaluate which statement most weakens the argument that "Cars are safer than planes," we need to assess how each option affects the conclusion that planes are more dangerous based on the reported fatality percentages.
The argument draws a conclusion from the data that 50% of plane accidents result in death, compared to only 1% of car accidents resulting in death. The underlying assumption is that relative percentages directly correlate to safety.
Option Analysis:- Planes are inspected more often than cars. This statement suggests more frequent safety checks for planes but does not directly address the comparative fatalities.
- The number of car accidents is several hundred thousand times higher than the number of plane accidents. This statement challenges the conclusion by introducing the sheer volume of car accidents compared to plane accidents. Even if a smaller percentage of car accidents are fatal, the significantly higher number of car accidents could suggest that cars are not as safe as assumed when considering total fatalities.
- Pilots never fly under the influence of alcohol, while car drivers often do. While this statement highlights the controlled and professional environment of aviation, it does not address the number of total fatalities between the modes of transport.
- Plane accidents are usually the fault of air traffic controllers, not pilots. This shifts blame but does not affect the statistics concerning safety outcomes or total fatalities.
Conclusion: The statement that "The number of car accidents is several hundred thousand times higher than the number of plane accidents" most seriously weakens the argument. If there are vastly more car accidents than plane accidents, even a lower percentage of fatalities could result in a larger total number of deaths from car accidents, suggesting that cars may not be as safe in absolute terms as implied.