Goronian lawmaker: Goronia's Cheese Importation Board, the agency responsible for inspecting all wholesale shipments of cheese entering Goronia from abroad and rejecting shipments that fail to meet specified standards, rejects about one percent of the cheese that it inspects. Since the health consequences and associated costs of not rejecting that one percent would be negligible, whereas the cost of maintaining the agency is not, the agency's cost clearly outweighs the benefits it provides.

Knowing the answer to which of the following would be most useful in evaluating the lawmaker's argument?

A. Are any of the types of cheeses that are imported into Goronia also produced in Goronia?
B. Has the Cheese Importation Board, over the last several years, reduced its operating costs by eliminating inefficiencies within the agency itself?
C. Does the possibility of having merchandise rejected by the Cheese Importation Board deter many cheese exporters from shipping substandard cheese to Goronia?
D. Are there any exporters of cheese to Goronia whose merchandise is never rejected by the Cheese Importation Board?
E. How is the cheese rejected by the Cheese Importation Board disposed of?

Any thoughts on this one??.....Not very clear
My analysis:
A--> any of the types of cheeses--->OOS
B--> Inefficiencise in the agency-->not related to the argument-->so it is out
C-->
D-->not related who cares!
E-->who cares how it is disposed off so it is out!

If we look at C and consider two cases:

Case 1: Yes rejection of cheese would deter exporters so that means ----------------------???

Case 2: Rejection of cheese will not deter exporters so that means ---------------------??

Experts please help me fill after means in both the cases above for option C

Many thanks!