Passage Summary: Even though antilock brakes are doing their job by preventing multi-car crashes, a consumer advocate claims we should stop using them if we want to save more lives.

Reasoning: Antilock brakes have successfully reduced the number of multiple-car accidents, yet the activist argues that removing them is necessary to save lives.

Analysis: The paradox here is a classic 'success vs. goal' conflict. The technology is doing exactly what it was designed to do—reduce collisions—but the activist claims this isn't actually saving lives. To resolve this, we need a piece of information that explains how reducing one type of accident might lead to more deaths elsewhere. Perhaps drivers with these brakes take more risks, or perhaps the brakes lead to a different, more lethal type of accident that outweighs the benefits of fewer multi-car collisions.