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 ring 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.

12. Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative's argument?

(A) The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more years to complete

(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

(C) The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the old rings

(D) The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate during shipping of beverage six-packs because most trucks that transport canned beverages protect their cargo from sunlight

(E) The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic animals when ingested in substantial quantities by them

yep, E

D, indirectly supports that new rings are good to go with.

Watch the key folks. It is in the last sentence.

Swicthing to new rings will eliminate the threat of suffocation by old rings.

E talks about problem with new rings. And that too when those harmfull sunstances are consumed in substantial quantities. This however reduces the threat to some extent. The bevegare company representative is talking about eliminating the threat completely.
B is the best. and it is the correct answer.
I chose E.

I thought E at first glance to but E seems too obvious. It gives an alternate negative effect (poisoning by ingestion) rather than directly attacking the claim that the ring will no longer suffocate entangled animals. I think B should be the answer because the conclusion says that once the new plastic ring will be implemented, wild animals will no longer be threatened by plastic rings in general. However, the conclusion which claims that the threat that plastic rings in general will no longer be a threat is not true because the old rings will still be around.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

I second DJ's thought. That where I went wrong.
Well done folks.

Frankly, I consider B to be my answer.
Because it explain "old ring " still keep using to harm wild animals but only switch new ring, a practice that can tackle this problem, the option can directly attack this argument.