Last week I received an example of the kind of thing that may have made Lyra suspicious of the logic of answer C in the real world. It was in a newsletter from State Farm Insurance. The headline asked, "Is your car at increased risk of being stolen?" Then they gave a list of "high risk" cars, which, surprisingly, did not include Porsches or Corvettes but instead the Camry, Accord and Ford pickup truck.
Obviously, the data that they had were that if a car is stolen, it is more likely to be fall into this group of cars. This is hardly suprising because there are more of these popular cars in every city in America than there are Porsches or Corvettes in the whole country. They twisted this conditional probability P(car type/stolen) around to the opposite conditional probability: if a car falls into this group, it is more likely to be stolen P(stolen/car type). There is no necessary equivalence between P(A/B) and P(B/A), but the human brain seems to be prepared to treat them as equivalent.
I can only hope that it was State Farm's marketing group who came up with this, not their actuaries.