Critical Reasoning

Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.
Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an important role in your level of sales.
The environmentalist’s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the
(A) oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
(B) otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
(C) oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
(D) government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
(E) oil company’s efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in previous projects to clean up oil spills

can somebody explain this?

I think the answer is C.

The environmentalist stresses the fact that the oil company cleaned the otters because they did not want to tarnih their imgae which in turn might have affected their sales.

So option c that says oil company's decions are giverned by their profits makes it strong that they cleaned the otters just to save their bottomline rather than to support an environmental cause.

Let me know the correct answer.

Thanks ron for your detailed answer, it helped me to understand the answer. OA is A

Thanks from my side also.

Thanks Ron.

Hi Ron,

Is C wrong for being too specific (with profits)
A seems to be a generalized conclusion!

TIA,
GK