Forgive me if a week isn't long enough to post an explanation for the answer.

I like this argument because it's straightforward in the sense that it gives you clear and consise data to work with. This makes it easier to explain the thought process and rationale behind the correct answer, and why the other answers can be considered "correct," but there are better answers hiding.

(A) It compares two different types of sports. -- Yes, this is a fact, but it doesn't help with answering the question.
(B) It does not take into account the treatment cost of the injuries. -- This answer could be true, but I don't see it as the most correct. Since we are given the number of people who get injured, we should stay within that line of thinking. This would be thinking a little too out of the box.
(C) It fails to take into account the total number of people who drag race and the total number of people who play baseball. -- This is the correct answer. Because we are comparing how many people get injured, we need to look at the bigger scope within the premise. This answer may seem similar to choice B at first, but we have to realize the difference. Choice B highlights the types of injuries, while choice C highlights the total number of injuries. The premise looks more into how many people get injured, so that's what we should look for in an answer.
(D) It does not take into account injuries caused in other sports such as boxing. Like B, this could be true, but again, out of scope.
(E) It uses inaccurate data to support its conclusion. -- This is an interesting answer choice. We don't know if the data is accurate or inaccurate, and we shouldn't have to think about it to begin with. In dwelling on whether this answer is write or wrong based on the assumption that "the data is wrong" is just a waste of time.