2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused

2. A pesticide producing company states that their unused pesticide that is dumped does not pose a threat to the aquatic life in the surrounding area. If this is correct, then why have local fish been dying in this region? Due to the fact that the pesticide company is not located in a highly fish populated area, they implicitly admit that the pesticides they produce are relatively dangerous to the nearby aquatic life.

Of the following statements listed below, which one would be most likely to weaken the argument of the author if it were true?

A. The possibility of pesticides filtering into the local water region was underestimated in the past.
B. Funds for environmental company clean up, which concern waste dumps that are poorly run, are reserved for rural regions only.
C. It would be pointless to locate chemical dumps where they would be most harmful, unless they can be 100% proven safe.
D. Dumps that are located in areas without large fish populations have fewer government interventions and are also less expensive.
E. City people are most probable to sue the company if the dumps cause them health problems.

whats the answer ? why ?