Environmentalist: Bando Inc's manufacturing process releases pollution

sakshamgmat, Next time, please edit the stimulus properly and the source is NOT Official Guide..

Step 1: Identify the question

The environmentalist's reasoning is flawed because it fails to

The word “flawed” indicates that this is either a Flaw or a Weaken question. “If true” does NOT appear, so this is a Flaw question. I'll write down “Fl” on my scrap paper

Step 2: Deconstruct the argument

Environ-ist: manuf → atmo pollutn
boyc bulbs (↑ sales) → so company ∆ manuf
Bando sells ↑ bulbs → boyc → ↑ damage to prof

Step 3: State the goal

The environmentalist doesn't like that Bando pollutes. Bando sells more light bulbs than any other product, so the environmentalist wants to boycott those bulbs to do the most damage to Bando'sprofits (according to this environmentalist, anyway), and then the hope is that this will all cause the company to change its manufacturing process.

I need to find an answer that will articulate a flaw in that reasoning. I've already thought of one. The environmentalist is assuming that just because Bando sells more light bulbs than anything else, the company is also earning the most profits from those products. But there's no evidence to support that. Also, consumers might not actually agree to boycott Bando.

Step 4: Work from wrong to right

(A) If anything, it could be argued that the environmentalist is already assuming the company will not want to change—that's why the environmentalist thinks he or she has to organize a boycott to change the company's mind.
(B) In the real world, I agree that environmentalist's should explore all possible ways…but the question asks me to find a flaw in this particular plan about the boycott. This doesn't apply to that plan.
(C) CORRECT. This sounds kind of like what I said before. It's a little abstract, so I'm not sure I fully understand all of it, but it does say that sales aren't necessarily proportional to profits. I'll keep this one in.
(D) This is like choice (B). It'd be good in general for the environmentalist to do this…but this doesn't help me figure out a flaw in the boycott plan specifically.
(E) I think what really matters is whether the plan is going to work at all, not how long it takes. The argument doesn't have any requirements about how long it will take to get Bando to change its process.