I would go with A, this statement weakens the claim.

IMO B
we need to prove that there is relation b/w EM waves and Cancer and as explained by B....Cancer happens due to EM waves...diff is that in Urban areas , wires are not exposed.
So, IMO B
OA pls

which is the conclusion? the 1st or the second sentence...how do we derive one for CRs like these?

IMO B.

It exposes another possibility of proning urban populace to electro magnetic waves thereby weaking the claim.

again Maihuna...u r not providin OA. :twisted:

Are maihuna, you are great, option is B only. and here goes reasoning for the same:

Conclusion: Any reported connection between electromagnetic fields, such as those produced by high-tension wires, and cancer is unsubstantiated.
Fact:The cancer rate of urban residents is at least as high as that of people living in rural areas close to high-tension wires.

A: Most cancers are caused by interactions between biochemical and environmental factors.
Its not damaging the view that cancer may happen due to EM waves, its in fact providing alternate reson so slightly strengthening.

B:Although in many big cities the electrical system is hidden from view, residents of such cities may be living very close to the underground sub-stations of utilities, which produce strong electromagnetic fields.
It is known that Rural area cancer has to do something with high tension wire, this option substantiate another high tension scenario albeit in a covered fashion.
So damaging the view that cancer doesn't happen due to EM waves.

Watch out the words:

"of people living in rural areas close to high-tension wires."

So we need to find that people living n the cities are actually CLOSE to wires and there is a link between Cancer and Magnetic fields.

Although in many big cities the electrical system is hidden from view, residents of such cities may be living very close to the underground sub-stations of utilities, which produce strong

(B)

I will go with option B in this case