Critical Reasoning

Plant Y thrives in environments of great sunlight and very little moisture. Desert X is an environment with constant, powerful sunlight, and almost no moisture. Although Plant Y thrives in the areas surrounding Desert X, it does not exist naturally in the desert, nor does it survive long when introduced there.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful in explaining the apparent discrepancy above?

(A) Desert X's climate is far too harsh for the animals that normally feed on Plant Y.
(B) For one week in the fall, Desert X gets consistent rainfall.
(C) The environment around Desert X is ideally suited to the needs of Plant Y.
(D) Due to the lack of sufficient moisture, Desert X can support very little plant life.
(E) Plant Y cannot survive in temperatures as high as those normally found in Desert X.

IMO E

A) fewer animals --> better for the plants.
B) Tempting choice, but if the plant is introduced at the end of the rainfall, it should survive for longer period of time.
C) doesn't support the argument at all.
D) second most tempting choice--> but we are talking about Plant Y not Plants in general.
E) Temperature is the Reason why Plant Y cannot survive in desert even though other conditions are suitable for it. We cannot imply that great sunlight means higher temperature.

+1 for E

Yes E. A clear winner.
What is the OA, Sourabh?

OA is E!

Opening the thread again-

I am stuck between B and E, how to rule out one.

I am facing such problem,getting stuck b/w two options, very frequently, can someone please suggest me how to get rid of it