When the supply of a given resource dwindles, alternative technologies allowing the use of different resources develop, and demand for the resource that was in short supply naturally declines. Then the existing supplies of that resource satisfy whatever demand remains. Among the once-dwindling resources that are now in more than adequate supply are flint for arrowheads, trees usable for schooner masts, and good mules. Because new technologies constantly replace old ones, we can never run out of important natural resources.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion?
(A) The masts and hulls of some sailing ships built today are still made of wood
(B) There are considerably fewer mules today than there were 100 years ago
(C) The cost of some new technologies is often so high that the companies developing them might actually lose money at first
(D) Dwindling supplies of a natural resource often result in that resource’s costing more to use
(E) The biological requirements for substances like clean air and clean water are unaffected by technological change
(E) The biological requirements for substances like clean air and clean water are unaffected by technological change
"Substances like clean air and clean water" mentioned in (E) must be IMPORTANT natural resources because they are "BIOLOGICAL requirements" - we need them biologically. The argument is essentially about that resources can be replaced by new technologies that allow us to use DIFFERENT resources that serve the same function of the old resources. (E) tells us that our BIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS for SPECIFIC resources like clean air and clean water ARE UNAFFECTED by technological change: technologies can not replace substances like clean air and clean water by something else because they are the VERY THINGS biologically required by us and unaffected by technological change.