Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?
(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.
(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.
(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and the general public.
(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.
(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.

OA :A
My take is E.
Because if some of the species are endagered due to this new proposal to give the parks to pvt groups.

I eliminated A because, " those who would join pvt grps and exploit the power.....can as well join govt agencies and do so"

Please discuss....

thanks!!