Consumer activist: When antilock brakes were first introduced, it was claimed that they would significantly reduce the incidence of multiple-car collisions, thereby saving lives. Indeed, antilock brakes have reduced the incidence of multiple-car collisions. I maintain, however, that to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with them. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict in the consumer activist's statements? ['Antilock brakes are no more effective in preventing multiple-car accidents than in preventing other kinds of traffic accidents.', 'For inexperienced drivers, antilock brakes are easier to use correctly than are traditional brakes.', 'Drivers and passengers in automobiles with antilock brakes feel less vulnerable, and are thus less likely to wear seat belts.', 'Under some circumstances, automobiles with traditional brakes stop just as quickly as do automobiles with antilock brakes.']