Critical Reasoning

Manufacturers of household appliances are still urging the public to purchase food processors. The various manufacturers' advertisements all point out that the prices of these appliances are now lower than ever and that each food processor comes with a lifetime service warranty. In addition, many manufacturers offer sizable rebates to customers who purchase food processors within a given time period. With these incentives, the advertisements contend, people can hardly afford not to purchase food processors.

Which answer choice is a logically prior issue that the manufacturers' advertisements fail to address?

(A) Whether the cost of repairs to the food processors over the years will cancel out the savings currently being offered
(B) Whether potential customers have enough uses for food processors to justify purchasing them
(C) Whether the heads of the companies manufacturing food processors own food processors themselves
(D) Whether the food processors currently being advertised will be outdated within the next five years
(E) Whether accessories and replacement parts will be readily available at retail outlets


Can any of the experts plss tell me that why E is not the answer. Also which type of question is this?
whether weaken or evaluate type to get a clear picture...

Is B the original answer?

There is good logic behind B. Look for keys in the argument. "Still Urging", which means they foresee demand. But does the demand actually exist. Doesn't everybody already have a food processor. If somebody already owns a food processor, how ill they justify the use for a new one? This is a question that the argument fails to address. Demand should overshadow any accessories or replacement issues since it comes first. Just a thought. Is B the original answer?