这道题答案没有问题，是排除法得到的，总觉得选项A的推理不足以作为assumption，但没有更好的选项，不知大家是怎么想的？

For similar cars and drivers, automobile insurance for collision damage has always cost more in Greatport than in LACE w:st="on">FairmontLACE>. Police studies, however, show that cars owned by Greatport residents are, on average, slightly less likely to be involved in a collision than cars in LACE w:st="on">FairmontLACE>. Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in Greatport than in LACE w:st="on">FairmontLACE>.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

1. Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in Greatport than in LACE w:st="on">FairmontLACE>.

2. There are no more motorists in Greatport than in LACE w:st="on">FairmontLACE>.

3. Greatport residents who have been in a collision are more likely to report it to their insurance company than Fairmont residents are.

4. Fairmont and Greatport are the cities with the highest collision-damage insurance rates.

5. The insurance companies were already aware of the difference in the likelihood of collisions before the publication of the police reports.

利润=收入-事故数*事故所赔额

前提说事故数少，结论说利润就高，那么得假设事故所赔偿金额少才行。

为什么不能选B呢。。

做的时候第一反映是A，可是仔细一想保险费和修理费有关么？所以就排了。。

而B，说开车的人要一样多。取非，如果G的人数比F多，那么即使LESS

LIKELY，保险费也可能高啊。。。

事后诸葛亮了

上面的朋友，虽然不知道你能否看到，还是回复吧

保险费和修理费（即当collision发生时insurance company赔付的费用）是相关的

所以才有了A这个正解，具体推理不重复了，上面的朋友已经讲了，然后看B，取非no more，也就是Greatport的坐车者比Fairmont多，但是作为论证的前提假设，发生几率是事故中坐车者/总的坐车者，发生几率小，顶多说明事故中坐车者两城差不多一致，并不能削弱原文，因为人数还要乘以保险金额，保险费本来G城比F城高，按照利润=收入-事故数*事故所赔额，并不能得出利润究竟上涨于否，我觉得上面的朋友兜到牛角尖里去了