For the safety-conscious Swedish market, a United States manufacturer

Hi,
I understand why D is right, makes the most sense. But can an expert confirm if my reasoning for eliminating B is correct?
I think that the reason we should eliminate B is because that if the manufacturer is not concerned with the competition finding out their trade secrets in the swedish market, then why are they concerned with the same thing in the US market? hence this option doesnt provide any kind of rationale for the manufacturer's actions.

MartyMurray KarishmaB 

would you help me how we can remove option B Also is this explanation problem?­

 

A company has produced much safer screens for the safety-conscious Swedish market.
The company is introducing these screens in US too.
This is an advantage the company has over its competitors. 
Still, they are marketing without advertising it as a safety improvement.

It doesn't make sense, right? If they have developed something much safer and if it is a competitive advantage, why wouldn't you market this safety feature? Why wouldn't you tell the customers that yoru screens are much safer?
We need an explanation for why he is not doing so, something that will help us make sense of the company's actions.

­(A) Many more desktop computers are sold each year in the United States market than are sold in the Swedish market.

Irrelevant. Tell us nothing about why he isn't marketing as safe to increase his sales.

(B) The manufacturer does not want its competitors to become aware of the means by which the company has achieved this advance in technology.

Marketing it as safer will not tell the competitors how he has achieved this advancement. It will only tell the competitors that he has achieved this advancement. The means by which he achieved it (the specific tech) his competitors will not get to know. They will only know that his screens are safer. How they are made safer, they wouldn't know. Hence this is not a reason for not marketing the advantage. 
EDDIE98

(C) Most business and scientific purchasers of desktop computers expect to replace such equipment eventually as better technology becomes available on the market.

Even if this is relevant, it is a reason to advertise, to tell them that they have developed safer screens through better tech. It is likely that the businesses will replace their current equipment and buy the company's new equipment. 

(D) An emphasis on the comparative safety of the new screen would call into question the safety of the many screens the manufacturer has already sold in the United States.

Now this could be a valid problem. If the company says wehave developed much safer screens, the government or people may ask, "So what have you been selling till now?" 
If the company emphasizes the safety of new screens, it may raise questions on the safety of the current screens sold and that may get the company in trouble. This could be a reason that the company is avoiding advertising the safety of the new screens. 

(E) Concern has been expressed in the United States over the health effects of the large electromagnetic fields surrounding electric power lines.

Irrelevant.­

Answer (D)

Ahh! I understand KarishmaB the point is that B says "the means!" It can't be known by advertisements but just results(safer scren).
Is this proper understand? Thanks!

Posted from my mobile device

­A weird question from my side. Why are you not saying as per option D, what screens were sold in past is irrelevant ?­