Critical Reasoning

Anybody knows why b) is wrong?

Wood smoke contains dangerous toxins that cause changes in human cells. Because wood smoke presents such a high health risk, legislation is needed to regulate the use of open-air fires and wood-burning stoves.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument above?
(A) The amount of dangerous toxins contained in wood smoke is much less than the amount contained in an equal volume of automobile exhaust.
(B) Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.
(C) Smoke produced by coal-burning stoves is significantly more toxic than smoke from woodburning stoves.
(D) No significant beneficial effect on air quality would result if open-air fires were banned within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation.
(E) In valleys where wood is used as the primary heating fuel, the concentration of smoke results in poor air quality.

IMO E
OPtion B) Within the jurisdiction covered by the proposed legislation, most heating and cooking is done with oil or natural gas.

The author states that Wood smoke contains dangerous toxins that cause changes in human cells..Here if the most of the cooking is done by natural gas, it doesnt provide any proof that wood smoke is more dangerous and will cause change in human cells.

OA pls.

Should be 'E'

Agree with E, its the only option that provides some credibility to the premise, rest are way off.

Agree with E, it provides some additional information that supports the argument.

OA is E.
vyomb, thanks for your explanation.

E seems to be the best choice here