Explanation
The question asks you to identify among the answer choices a fact that would support the passage’s argument. The explanation offered in the passage can be supported by ruling
out other explanations that might, given the information presented in the passage, appear likely. One obvious explanation for there being more medical treatments in
Sparva is that there are more accidents there. Choice E rules out that explanation. So Choice E strengthens the argument in the passage and is the correct answer. Choices A
and D each present consequences that are likely results of insurers in Sparva having to pay for more medical treatments. But neither bears on the cause of insurers having to
pay for more treatments. Choice B does not strengthen the argument and may weaken it. A higher cost of medical care provides additional motivation for people to seek insurance
payments to cover whatever post-accident care they receive. So Choice B might weaken the argument by providing an alternative explanation for insurers paying for
more medical treatments in Sparva. According to the passage, whether treatment is emergency treatment is, in other provinces, an important criterion in determining insurers’
responsibility. But since this criterion does not apply in Sparva, Choice C is not directly relevant to the point that the passage is trying to establish.