DNA evidence has increasingly been used in court

DNA evidence has increasingly been used in court to prove guilt and to exonerate the innocent.Because so many convicted felons have been cleared by DNA evidence, all cases in which someone was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence should be called into question and reviewed.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen this argument?

a. One in three convictions today rests largely on DNA evidence.
Incorrect - This demonstrates the importance of DNA evidence for current trials, not trials that have already lead to convictions.

b. DNA evidence is admissible even after the statute of limitations has expired.
Incorrect - I'll admit, I picked this one at first. The reason it is so enticing is because it makes you think that no matter how much time has past, someone can still be found guilty or not guilty. This affects future court cases, not former court cases; thus, this is irrelevant. That is a nuance I did not immediately catch.

c. Of every ten cases in which DNA evidence becomes available post-conviction, five convictions are
overturned.
Correct - This gives the bases for revisiting old cases. That is precisely what we need.

d. DNA evidence is 99.8% accurate.
Incorrect - This speaks to the efficacy for the use of DNA in current cases, but does not necessary strengthen the assertion that prior cases should be reexamined.

e. DNA evidence is very difficult to falsify or tamper with.
Incorrect - Again, good to know, but not relevant for making the argument stronger. This speaks to the efficacy of DNA evidence itself, not the specific uses of DNA evidence on prior court cases.

Kudos if my post was helpful!

~ David