Step 1: Understanding the flaw in the reasoning.
The author assumes that caffeine pills are directly linked to truck accidents without considering other possible factors, such as the proximity of caffeine suppliers to accident-prone areas. The reasoning neglects other potential explanations for the correlation.
Step 2: Analysis of options.
- (A) While the author does suggest a relationship between caffeine pill intake and truck driver accidents, it does not explicitly assume that the pills cause speeding.
- (B) This is the correct flaw, as the author overlooks other factors that could explain the proximity of caffeine suppliers to car accidents.
- (C) The argument doesn't make this assumption about efficiency; it focuses on the correlation between caffeine intake and accidents.
- (D) The author does not assume that caffeine pills are the only cause, but does assume they are a factor in speeding.
- (E) Non-truck vehicles might be involved, but the primary flaw is in overlooking other factors, not just the actions of non-trucks.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The correct answer is (B), as the flaw lies in the failure to consider other factors that might explain the proximity of caffeine suppliers to the accidents.
Disregard commonly known facts. Which conclusion would follow on the basis of given statements only?
Statement (I): Some bottles are car. Some cars are cycle.
Conclusion: \[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{[(I)] Some bottles are cycle is a possibility.} \\ \bullet & \text{[(II)] All bottles are cycle.} \\ \end{array}\]
If \(8x + 5x + 2x + 4x = 114\), then, \(5x + 3 = ?\)
If \(r = 5 z\) then \(15 z = 3 y,\) then \(r =\)