哭求一道逻辑题，万分感谢各位大侠了。。。

小鱼1988

GWD逻辑分类训练15
Q15:
TrueSave is a mail-order company that ships electronic products from its warehouses to customers worldwide.  The company’s shipping manager is proposing that customer orders be packed with newer, more expensive packing materials that virtually eliminate damage during shipping.  The manager argues that overall costs would essentially remain unaffected, since the extra cost of the new packing materials roughly equals the current cost of replacing products returned by customers because they arrived in damaged condition.

Which of the following would it be most important to ascertain in determining whether implementing the shipping manager’s proposal would have the argued-for effect on costs?

A.Whether the products shipped by TrueSave are more vulnerable to incurring damage during shipping than are typical electronic products
B.Whether electronic products are damaged more frequently in transit than are most other products shipped by mail-order companies
C.Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage already present when those items were packed for shipping
D.Whether there are cases in which customers blame themselves for product damage that, though present on arrival of the product, is not discovered until later
E.Whether TrueSave continually monitors the performance of the shipping companies it uses to ship products to its customers

我的理解是，题目的逻辑是船运公司要求新的贵的包装降低货物的损害，但是TS公司反驳，说新包装的费用和因为货物损害而造成的换货的费用是一样的，所以公司的总支出不变。
问题问，哪项可以确定船运公司的措施可以对支出造成影响。

答案选的是C。。我没有想通为什么。。还是我对题目的理解有偏差。。
哭求大家的帮助！！
谢谢谢谢各位大好人大牛人了！！！

小鱼1988

明白了！！！
谢谢两位！！！！太感谢了！！！！

franciszmy

C说是否是因为在还没运输前就已经损坏了，所以才退回公司的。也就是说，there is a conditon that the cost of repoducing is not because of the shipping but because of the products that have been damaged before shipping.所以和运输无关，也就无从谈起更换新包装以增加运输成本的问题了

yababo

GIST of the statement: TS wants to use A(newer pakaging) and argues that A won't rise the cost because the extra cost of A will replace the cost of B which will happen without A. So A is worthwhile.

Condition: the cost of B won't happen with A.
              if not A can not replace B