Please explain

Conclusion: radiation from the nuclear weapons plants poses no health hazards to people living near them. Why? A study found that there was no difference in the death rates of the areas near the plants with the death rates in areas that had no such plants. What's the issue here? Just because the plant is not effecting death rates doesn't necessarily mean it is not hazardous. What if the plant is causing serious, but non-fatal illnesses in the community that lives near it? Then the conclusion would no longer be true. Answer choice (C) illustrates this point. If exposure to nuclear radiation could cause many serious diseases that do not necessarily result in death, then it is no longer true that the radiation from the nuclear weapons plant poses no health hazards to people living near them. Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

why not E?

Hi Ceci, E isn’t the best choice here because it diverts to talking about workers at the plant who don’t live near the plant. The conclusion we’re trying to undermine is that there are no health risks to people who live near them, so it’s irrelevant right now whether the workers have risks. It would be different, and more relevant, if the conclusion were that there are no health risks from nuclear power plants at all to anyone.