Critical Reasoning

By competing with rodents for seeds, black ants help control rodent populations that pose a public health risk. However, a very aggressive species of blank ant, the Loma ant, which has recently invaded a certain region, has a venomous sting that is often fatal to humans. Therefore, the planned introduction into that region of ant flies, which prey on Loma ants, would benefit public health.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Ant flies do not attack black ants other than Loma ants.

B. Loma ants are less effective than many bird species in competing with rodents for seeds.

C. Certain other species of black ants are more effective than Loma ants in competing with rodents for seeds.

D. The sting of Loma ants can also be fatal to rodents.

E. The use of pesticides to control Loma ants could have harmful effects on the environment.

oa a[spoiler][/spoiler]

I go with answer A...

Now "black ants" are useful to combat rodents...so we need them to 'would benefit public health' but do we need all of them? no, we need all black ants other than luma ants. so answer A, says that we will get rd of harmful Luma ants, but keeping other ants to get rid of rodents, so this satisfies the conclusion in the question...

B - Introduction of these ant flies, does nothing with birds..
C- This would have been true if the 1st line talked about Luma ants only, not black ants in general, we kinda know this info that other black ants do compete with rodents.
D- This would weaken the argument not strengthen
E- This answer could justify why use ant flies in the first place, but not the conclusion in the stimuli (benefit public health = get rid of rodents + Luma ants)

My intuition whispers that it is A.