Critical Reasoning

Which of the following most logically completes the argument below? Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space. This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since ________.

　　A. Many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years

　　B. For satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive

　　C. There are no known previous instances of satellites' having been exploded on purpose

　　D. The only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth

　　E. A greatly increased number of small particles in Earth's orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible

The OA is E. I am confused about C and E. I believe the description of passage emphasize large satellites have serious effects than small pieces. Thus, I think E is not correct. About C, because no known previous instances, we cannot control the result so it is ill conceived.
Can someone explain it? Thanks in advance!

Crystal W wrote:Which of the following most logically completes the argument below? Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal recently been made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space. This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since ________.

　　A. Many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years

　　B. For satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit would be prohibitively expensive

　　C. There are no known previous instances of satellites' having been exploded on purpose

　　D. The only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth

　　E. A greatly increased number of small particles in Earth's orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible

Proposal: To eliminate telescopic interference from nonfunctioning large satellites by exploding them in space.
Conclusion: This proposal is ill-conceived.

To support the conclusion, the correct answer choice must explain why the proposed plan will not eliminate interference or how it will yield unintended negative consequences.

E: A greatly increased number of small particles in Earth's orbit would result in a blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations impossible.
Implication:
The explosion of large satellites will greatly increase the number of small particles in Earth's orbit, rendering certain valuable telescopic observations impossible.
Since the goal of the proposal is to ELIMINATE TELESCOPIC INTERFERENCE, the proposal is ill-conceived.

The correct answer is E.

About C, because no known previous instances, we cannot control the result so it is ill conceived.

The portion in red is not necessarily true.
By this logic, ANY PLAN never tried before is ill-conceived.
To weaken a plan, the correct answer must show WHY the plan will not work or HOW it will yield unintended negative consequences.
To indicate that a plan has not been tried before is insufficient to conclude that the plan is ill-conceived.