City Official: I cannot deny that sodium monofluoride, which is used in all major brands of toothpaste to help prevent tooth decay, has been shown to be more toxic than lead. Those who oppose our plan to treat the public water supply with sodium monofluoride cite warnings on the back of toothpaste tubes advising the user to contact a poison control center if the user swallows more toothpaste than needed for brushing. But these same opponents ignore the fact that even though nobody reads these warnings virtually no cases of toothpaste poisoning have ever been reported.
The passage is structured to lead to which of the following conclusions?
(A) Sodium monofluoride warnings on toothpaste tubes should be more conspicuous to toothpaste users.
(B) Fluoride in toothpaste is not as toxic as warnings on toothpaste tubes would lead users to believe.
(C) Neither fluoridated water nor fluoridated toothpaste contains lead.
(D) Suppliers of public water treated with sodium monofluoride should not be required to warn their customers about its toxicity.
(E) Fluoridated water is not as toxic as those who oppose treating water with sodium monofluoride might claim.
The argument as a whole can be characterized as an attempt to refute an argument against treating water with sodium monofluoride. To refute that argument, the city official provides evidence tending to show that sodium monofluoride is not as harmful as some might believe. Thus, choice (E) expresses the point that the city official is leading to in the passage.