Critical Reasoning

Please give reasonoings

Science Academy study: It has been demonstrated that with natural methods, some well-managed farms are able to reduce the amounts of synthetic fertilizer and pesticide and also of antibiotics they use without necessarily decreasing yields; in some cases yields can be increased.
Critics: Not so. The farms the academy selected to study were the ones that seemed most likely to be successful in using natural methods. What about the farmers who have tried such methods and failed?

Which one of the following is the most adequate evaluation of the logical force of the critics’ response?

(A) Success and failure in farming are rarely due only to luck, because farming is the management of chance occurrences.

(B) The critics show that the result of the study would have been different if twice as many farms had been studied.

(C) The critics assume without justification that the failures were not due to soil quality.

(D) The critics demonstrate that natural methods are not suitable for the majority of framers.

(E) The issue is only to show that something is possible, so it is not relevant whether the instances studied were representative.

I chose E

i choose A, though D looks tempting.

i think answer is E

Which one of the following is the most adequate evaluation of the logical force of the critics’ response?

Does the above similar to evaluate an argument/weaken/strengthen? Pls clarify this.

Thinking it means weaken, opting for C.

OA is E

can someone explain what is the question asking us to do?

I chose A, but agree with E.

However what i don't understand in E is the bold portion.

The issue is only to show that something is possible, so it is not relevant whether the instances studied were representative.

The critics are specifically targeting the instances that were not considered.

Please explain.

I must admit that E seems to be the answer.