I am confused with this question in below option.
E. Concern about aquatic animals should be on the same label to to that of wild animals. If the company is worrying about wild animals, how could it allow harm to aquatic animals?
Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six-packs of beverage cans together pose a threat to wild animals, which often become entangled in the discarded rings and suffocate as a result. Following our lead, all beverage companies will soon use only those rings consisting of a new plastic that disintegrates after only three days’ exposure to sunlight. Once we all complete the switchover from the old to the new plastic rings
, therefore, the threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated
We have to weaken the switchover from old to new, only B does that
B. After the beverage companies have switched over
to the new plastic rings, a substantial number of the old plastic rings will persist in most aquatic and woodland environments.
This clearly weakens the argument.
E. The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them.
This weakens the new plastic rings doesn't weaken the the plasticrings have been switchedover from old to new... we don't know what happened to the old rings.