Mprep Strategy guide 6th edition - (IR & essay)

[JbhB682]

Read this in the strategy guide but my question is why is this considered an acceptable flaw.

I thought a flaw like this is not legitimate because it challenges the premise of the argument to begin with ?

---------------------------------------------


Source : Manhattan Prep - Page 37 (6th edition)

Flaw mentioned per Manhattan Prep Guide :

Likewise it maybe true that Tarquinian courts find one or more drivers guilty in most cases, but the degree to which these findings are driven by administrative necessity or other unrelated factors is unknown. Perhaps insurance law in the country demands that one or the other drive be found at fault.,even if road conditions are largely to blame. This questions call the utility of the mentioned evidence into question

[JbhB682]

PROMPT:
The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts, airbags, and other safety measures that protect the driver, while new cars should be installed with a spike on the steering column pointed at the driver's heart. These measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely.

ESSAY:
This argument is not well-reasoned, reaching an extreme conclusion using both questionable premises and flawed logic extending from those premises.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Which premise does the flaw challenge? We know that 'one or more drivers is found at fault in the courts', but that leaves open the possibility that they are not actually at fault. However, that seems to be a minor and rather incidental flaw compared to the other, bigger flaws in this argument.