Instead of blaming an automobile accident on driver error, insurance companies should first try to figure out why the error was made by analyzing flaws in road design, automobile designs and in criteria to determine eligibility for a driver’s license. Only then will the insurance companies be able to effectively issue guidelines to prevent future accidents, instead of merely punishing the incidental driver.

Which of the following is a presupposition of the argument above?

A) Driver error is not a significant factor in most automobile accidents.
B) Automobile manufacturers should be the agents who investigate automobile accidents and not insurance companies.
C) Stricter government regulation of the automobile and highway construction industries would make automobile travel safer.
D) Investigation of automobile accidents should contribute to the prevention of future accidents.
E) Most drivers who make errors in driving repeat those errors unless they are retrained.

Let me explain this:

Thanks Chinmay. I would also like to hear CV team’s opinion please.

Since we are assuming that the driver is not at fault, then why does retraining comes into the option. If the driver is not at fault then why he needs further trainings??

how do we infer that the same driver repeats the mistake?

You dont have to to infer here.. This is an assumption question!

Hi…

May be the following will break the conclusion :  Investigation of automobile accidents road design or automobile design or eligibility criteria WILL NOT contribute to the prevention of future accidents. 

The negation of option D gives the tone “should not” more than ” will not” and hence is not really dependant on the conclusion of the argument.