B :correct

IMO E

OA E ..

By POE i came down to E. But not sure how E would weaken. Any thoughts?

I would go with B. "E" is out of scope.

Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters. ---- OOS
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors. ---- Here we are talking about lobsters which are caught in the harbor.

(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water. --- OOS
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster. ----- OOS
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

----Notice the scope shift, when he says "hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases. " as evidence for the "pointless" conclusion.

We are talking about Lobsters contracting disease. Lobsters may not be harmed by those diseases but they can still be carriers. Hence E is correct.

kaulnikhil wrote:Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.
(B) Lobsters, like other crustaceans, live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.
(C) Lobsters breed as readily in sewage-contaminated water as in unpolluted water.
(D) Gill diseases cannot be detected by examining the surface of the lobster.
(E) Humans often ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.

Choice B

The conclusion calls the proposal "pointless" and raises a longevity issue because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.

B) Weakens that conclusion by providing a reason that lobsters do have longevity because they live longer in the open ocean than in industrial harbors.

IMO E.
For B to be true, there should have been some hint in the passage about industrial water or open ocean. However E says that humans often illl when they eat lobsters with gill disease. Now if this is true, it means that lobsters do suffer with gill disease and it weakens the argument which says that lobsters dont live enough to be suffering with gill disease.

What level question would this be ?

I believe the answer is E.

The conclusion is that the proposal is pointless because lobsters don't live long enough to be harmed by the disease. As Ritesh says, the argument gives us no information about open ocean and industrial harbors so B cannot be the answer. E, on the other hand, gives us a solid reason for the proposal to be useful. The humans who eat infected lobsters fall ill. Therefore the proposal is useful as it will prevent infection of lobsters. Options E is the only one which seriously weakens the argument that the proposal is pointless!