Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if no additional driving infraction was committed. Lawyers and citizens groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives.

Inference question

(A) Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seatbelt.

=> Focus on the underlined portions, gives an indication that such a restriction was not present earlier. If it would have been there we would have got contextual clues such as: "new law derived certain restrictions from previous laws" or something like "citizens were unhappy with the new law because it didnt address their primary concern"

(B) The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.
=> out of scope - "current search and seizure laws

(C) Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
=> out of scope - this is an expectation, focus on the last line of the passage

(D) The previous seat belt laws were ineffective in saving lives.
=> out of context - we dont know have info regarding the effectiveness of previous laws, especially "seat belt laws"

(E) Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.
=> completely out of scope