Critical Reasoning

Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.
Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?

A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.

OA: B

can someone explain this one?
I chose D instead of B.

thank u!

Also, the argument is talking about CONVERTING to the water conversion landscape. So we know that a traditional landscape is already in place. Option D talks about the expenses of putting in a new water-conversion landscape versus putting in a new traditional landscape. We need to choose an option which says that expenses of CONVERTING the landscape are much less compared to the benefits.

Right?

Yes, that makes sense.