Critical Reasoning

As one who has always believed that truth is our nation's surest weapon in the propaganda war against our foes, I am distressed by reports of "disinformation" campaigns by American intelligence agents in Western Europe. In a disinformation campaign, untruths are disseminated through gullible local journalists in order to damage the interests of our enemies and protect our own. Those who defend this practice say that lying is necessary to counter Soviet disinformation campaigns aimed at damaging America's political interests. These apologists contend that one must fight fire with fire. I would point out to the apologists that the fire department finds water more effective.

The author's main point is that

(A) although disinformation campaigns may be effective, they are unacceptable on ethical grounds
(B) America's moral standing in the world depends on its adherence to the truth
(C) the temporary political gains produced by disinformation campaigns generally give way to long-term losses
(D) Soviet disinformation campaigns have done little to damage America's standing in Europe
(E) disinformation campaigns do not effectively serve the political interests of the United States

IMO B
The opening line gives the hint of the main point of this argument..

Why not E? B looks more like an inference. The stimulus is mostly talking about disinformation so shouldn't that be a part of the conclusion?

Yeah Punit,

I never saw E..Sorry man...E really brings out the author's point..

I fully agree with u E does the thing...

Why not 'A'?

I am with A.

i am not sure how we can conclude E, because there is no evidence in the argument to decide whether disinformation campaigns serve or do not serve the political interests of U.S

IMO E

IMO E

Opponents to the authors' arguments propound that lying is the best way to counter disinformation campaigns (propaganda war), being much more effective than 'truth' and thereby ultimately serving to further America's political interests. Hence the main argument of the passage is to a to arrive at/identify a tool for furthering American political interests. The author concludes his argument by saying that truth is more effective than other means ('lying'/'disinformation campaign') available.

The official answer is E. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain