Step 1: Analyzing the flaw in the reasoning.
The author assumes a direct causal link between caffeine pill consumption and car accidents without considering other possible factors, like the proximity of the suppliers to accident-prone areas.
Step 2: Analysis of options.
- (A) The author does not assume that caffeine pills directly cause speeding, just that they correlate with higher efficiency.
- (B) This is the correct flaw, as the author doesn't account for other potential reasons for the high number of accidents near caffeine suppliers.
- (C) The argument does not suggest that higher efficiency makes truck drivers less likely to be involved in accidents; it just correlates caffeine consumption with accidents.
- (D) The argument doesn't claim that caffeine pills are the only cause of speeding.
- (E) While non-truck actions could be involved, the flaw is more about the proximity of caffeine suppliers, which is not addressed.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The correct answer is (B) because the author fails to consider other factors that could explain the proximity of caffeine suppliers to the accidents.
If \(8x + 5x + 2x + 4x = 114\), then, \(5x + 3 = ?\)
If \(r = 5 z\) then \(15 z = 3 y,\) then \(r =\)