this one is a bit interesting , lets say the time limit is

Organic farmers are looking for non-chemical methods to rid their crops of pests. Giving crops a slight electric shock has no ill effect on crops but rids them of caterpillars. This method should be employed by organic farmers all over the country.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the view that it would not be advisable to try to eradicate agricultural pests with the method mentioned above?


(A) Most species of caterpillar are subject to some natural predators.
Natural predators get rid of most caterpillars, not all. Possible answer.

(B) Many agricultural pests do not go through a caterpillar stage.
No caterpillars. No treatment required. Possible answer.

(C) This method also kills insects that are agriculturally beneficial.
The treatment can adversely affect the crop. Very much possible. A good rebuttal.

(D) Since caterpillars of different species appear at different times of the year, several shocks would be necessary.
Arduous process of eradication. Possible answer.

(E) No large-scale production facilities exist today for the product that electrifies crops.
Less feasibility for implementing the method in a large scale. Possible.

90 secs.
So, all of them are possible reasons for not implementing the method, but "C" has an adverse effect on crops, proving the best rebuttal point or C most strongly condemns the method suggested for eradicating caterpillar.

Ans: "C"