Environmental groups are aggressively protesting the proposed use of a new technique for mining oil from the fringes of underground aquifers. These groups complain that such mining will lead to instances of contaminated groundwater and to sinkholes and other disasters in areas near the proposed mining. But, as the mining companies are quick to retort, the countries already using this technique have not reported any groundwater contamination or environmental issues. Therefore, it is safe to proceed with the new technique.
Which of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion above?
(A) Some of the countries currently using the new technique have only been doing so for two years or less.
(B) Other widely-used techniques used to procure oil have led to even worse contamination issues than what environmentalists predict could happen with the new technique
(C) The countries currently using the technique are so dependent on oil revenue that they are unlikely to report any problems that might require them to stop.
(D) In the years that the new technique had been in use, several safeguards have been added to prevent the contamination of nearby water.
(E) All of the aquifers near which the proposed technique would be employed are used or will soon be used to provide drinking water for their surrounding communities.
Look at the gap in logic in this problem: the environmental groups are worried that contamination might HAPPEN but the conclusion is based upon the idea that no contamination has been REPORTED. But does "not reported" mean "didn't happen"? Not necessarily. Choice C seizes on that discrepancy and shows why contamination could happen but not be reported.