Here is the OE; however, I am still not able to comprehend reason for eliminating option E. Can someone please help.
OE:
The author of this argument concludes that, because an active chemical in an insecticide becomes inactive after 14 days of air exposure, the death of an insect that lands on a sprayed tree is not due to the ingestion of this insecticide.
The answer must provide evidence against the following chain of events: Insecticide is sprayed, active chemical is exposed to the air, 14 days pass, chemical becomes inactive, insect's death is not due to this pesticide.
Choice D is correct. It provides evidence that the chemical, once sprayed, is not necessarily exposed to the air for fourteen continuous days. If a rainstorm can carry the insecticide into a stream and preserve its activity, it is not until the chemical is re-exposed to the air that its activity resumes. Thus, this chemical could evaporate, rain back down onto the tree, and cause the death of an insect outside of the 14-day window. This weakens the argument.
Choice A is outside the scope of the argument, which is concerned with the effect of this insecticide on an insect.
Choice B is irrelevant; there is no evidence that the amount of insecticide has any effect on how long it remains effective. After 14 days, all the insecticide, no matter how much there is, should become inactive and non-lethal.
Choice C is about an irrelevant group of insects; the conclusion is that insects that land on the tree do not die from ingesting this insecticide; the insect eggs inside the tree are out of the scope of this argument.
Choice E is irrelevant to the conclusion. This choice states that the insecticide might have another lethal effect on insects, causing them to die from malnutrition. However, the argument states explicitly that insects that land after 14 days do not die from ingesting the insecticide. This choice actually strengthens that argument, by offering another reason that the insects might have died on this tree.