A leaking undersea oil well in the USA caused massive damage to wildlife and was extremely expensive to clear up. Worst of all, it destroyed the livelihoods of poor people living in the area. Despite this, in the developed world we still don’t take seriously the risks of deepwater drilling. Until we can be satisfied that regulation is effective and that oil companies are operating safely, deepwater drilling should be banned.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the above argument?
A) The risks of deepwater drilling were known prior to the accident in the USA.
B) Oil companies involved in the accident in the USA paid money to compensate the victims.
C) A ban on deepwater drilling would cause oil prices to rise, which would affect poor people most.
D) Oil companies will operate more safely in future than they did before the accident in the USA.
E) Alternatives to fossil fuels may eventually be able to meet our energy needs.
looking at C and D, I would say that C is much more against banning drilling: it is saying why drilling shouldn't be banned, whereas D is saying something like: if it doesn't get banned then the situation in the future won't be too bad