Critical Reasoning

Although fullerens - spherical molecules made entirely of carbon - were first found in the laboratory , they have since been found in nature , formed in the fissures of the natural mineral shugnite. Since lab synthesis of fullerens requires distinctive conditions of temperature and pressure , this discovery should give geologists a test case for calculating hypothesis about the state of earth's crust at the time when these naturally occurring fullerens were formed.

which of the following , if true , seriously undermines the argument ?

A) Confirming that shugnite generally contained fullerens took careful experimentation

B) some fullerens have been found on small meteorite that collided with a space craft.

C) The mineral shugnite itself contains large amount of carbon , from which fullerens apparently formed.

D) The naturally occurring fullerens are arranged in a previously unknown crystalline structure

E) Shugnite itself is formed only under distinctive conditions

I chose B. But it is a wrong answer. I still couldn't understand why B is wrong

lab test can help find geological conditions.
Assumption: Lab based element = naturally occuring element.

IMO D

@HSPA OA is D. But still I'm not getting the whole thing

baladon99 wrote:@HSPA OA is D. But still I'm not getting the whole thing

I can quote B : B is out of scope answer choice.

Stem is regarding study of earth's crust using Fullerens. Artificially created lab Fullerens vs naturally occuring elements.

Saying Fullerens are part of meteorite and discussion about spacecraft is way too away from the original topic.