Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released a line of zero calorie energy drinks for athletes who seek flavor and hydration without sugar. But Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie drinks contain a number of chemicals known to have a deleterious effect on the body, so clearly these athletes would be better served by consuming regular Cheetah Sweet instead.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

The chemicals affect anyone who drinks Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie line.
Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie line cannot be altered to remove the chemicals.
Regular Cheetah Sweet is at least as tasty as Cheetah Sweet’s zero calorie line.
Sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than the chemicals in question.
Cheetah Sweet has no plans to discontinue its regular line.
Source: Veritas Prep

[/quote]", so clearly these athletes would be better served by consuming regular Cheetah Sweet instead" : this clause from the premise holds true only if sugar is better than chemicals. Option D eliminates the possibility. Hence D, it is.[/quote]

Just for the sake of discussion why not (E).
Had the regular line been closed the athletes wouldn't have been able to switch the drink.

Rgds

[/quote]
Sorry for the typo above. The quoted text was conclusion, not premise.

Our conclusion says : athletes would be better served by consuming regular Cheetah Sweet instead

This has nothing to do with the regular line being continued or discontinued.

For instance, a diabetic patient is better served by salt than sugar.
If salt is unavailable this doesn't affect the fact. Salt will be still preferable.

But say, a new study reveals salt is more harmful to a diabetic patient, then the above fact no longer stands true.
You can apply the negation technique here to choose between D and E, as well.[/quote]

Good explanation I must say ,however that was just for the sake of discussion.

Thanks !!