一道逻辑题，大家帮帮忙啊

Environmentalist:  The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville create sun acceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

Milville business spokesperson:  Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville  in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents.  So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

Environmentalist: I disagree:  A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following? Principle

A.        Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances

B.        Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome

C.        Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved in greater degree by a different means

D.      Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s position in order to be better able to attack it

E.    Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain group of people actually benefited those     people

 给的答案是E，大概说的是给这个地方居民带来的便利的事实是不对的，可我总觉得这样解释很别扭啊，而且很绕，不是GMAT的风格嘛

我选的是B，E说snowmobiles有坏处，S说snowmobiles有好处，所以E反对S的假设（带来的好处>坏处）

请问这样分析有什么不对吗？请赐教谢谢

A，B错，因为spokesperson所说的不是assumption。他先陈述事实，然后得到一个结果（Effect）。

Environmentalist 正式从spokesperson所说的事实出发，推出了一个相反的结果，即为（denying）。选E

再看看B答案的意思， desirable outcome is better than negative aspects 其实原文根本就没有这个意思的。