Critical Reasoning

In opposing the 1970 Clean Air Act, the United States automobile industry argued that meeting the act’s standards for automobile emissions was neither economically feasible nor environmentally necessary. However, the catalytic converter, invented in 1967, enabled automakers to meet the 1970 standards efficiently. Currently, automakers are lobbying against the government’s attempt to pass legislation that would tighten restrictions on automobile emissions. The automakers contend that these new restrictions would be overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution. Clearly, the automobile industry’s position should not be heeded.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the method used to counter the automakers’ current position?

(A) The automakers’ premises are shown to lead to a contradiction.
(B) Facts are mentioned that show that the automakers are relying on false information.
(C) A flaw is pointed out in the reasoning used by the automakers to reach their conclusion.
(D) A comparison is drawn between the automakers’ current position and a position they held in the past.
(E) Evidence is provided that the new emissions legislation is both economically feasible and environmentally necessary.

IMO E, not sure though

The automakers contend that these new restrictions would be overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution.

Evidence is provided that the new emissions legislation is both economically feasible and environmentally necessary.

Let's look at exactly how the argument tackles the automakers' current position. After telling a story about the past, the argument says only this much:

Currently, automakers are lobbying against the government’s attempt to pass legislation that would tighten restrictions on automobile emissions. The automakers contend that these new restrictions would be overly expensive and unnecessary to efforts to curb air pollution. Clearly, the automobile industry’s position should not be heeded.

There's almost nothing there. It just gives their position and says they're wrong, boom.
Did it point out a contradiction? No.
Did it show they're relying on false information? No.
Did it point out a flaw in the reasoning? No.
Did it make a comparison with a position they took in the past? Implicitly, yes. The whole first half was setting that up.
Did it provide any evidence? No.

So it's D.

Argument says what happened in 1970 should happen again and auto industry protested in 1970 and they are protesting and Govt didn't listen to them in 1970 and it should not listen to them now.

(D)

I also with option D