Topical application of oil from the bark of aoli trees, which are quite rare and grow only in certain regions of South America, has been shown to be the only effective means of treating certain skin disorders. At the current rate of harvesting bark for aoli oil, however, aoil trees will become extinct within fifty years. Clearly, measures must be taken soon to reduce the demand for aoli oil; otherwise, fifty years from now it will no longer be possible to treat these skin disorders effecttively.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) One of the skin disorders for which aoli oil is an effective treatment is caused by exposure to chemicals used in a manufaturing process that is quickly becoming obsolete.

(B) The bark of newly planted aoli trees can be harvested for oil within twenty years after the new trees are planted.

(C) The cause of skin disorders treatable with aoli oil is also the cause of certain other health problems which are treated effectively by ingesting aoli oil

(D) In South America aoli tree bark is widely used in making a variety of decorative craft items and utensils.

(E) Only people who live in the regions of South America where aoli trees are found usffer from skin disorders treatable with aoil oil.

OA is B

The explanation is that the argument proposes to reduce demand, while B provide that the supply of aoli tree is sufficient if aoli trees can be harvested after 20 years. However, I think that the reasoning is like saying that tigers will become extinct within 10 years, but tigers reproduce every 2 years, so tigers will not become extinct and no measures are necessary.