Which of the following most logically completes the argument below?

Although the number of large artificial satellites orbiting the Earth is small compared to

the number of small pieces of debris in orbit, the large satellites interfere more seriously

with telescope observations because of the strong reflections they produce. Because

many of those large satellites have ceased to function, the proposal has recently been

made to eliminate interference from nonfunctioning satellites by exploding them in space.

This proposal, however, is ill conceived, since _______.

A. many nonfunctioning satellites remain in orbit for years

B. for satellites that have ceased to function, repairing them while they are in orbit

would be prohibitively expensive

C. there are no known previous instances of satellites’ having been exploded on

purpose

D. the only way to make telescope observations without any interference from debris

in orbit is to use telescopes launched into extremely high orbits around the Earth

E. a greatly increased number of small particles in Earth’s orbit would result in a

blanket of reflections that would make certain valuable telescope observations

impossible

Answer or E? Pullzing.....

I have searched for this question, but find nothing. It seems most of your guys take it a easy question. Can anyone give a hand? Tks.

E呀，兄弟。

D没说为什么原计划不行，只是说只有一个办法是。。。。但E就说出了它为什么不行。而问题问的就是原计划为什么不行。

E is the answer.

To make the proposal that exploding the nonfunctioning large satellites in space will eliminate the interference ill conceived, the option should provide the evidence that even the explosion cannot eliminate the interference as expected.

E asserts that the small particles will make the observation impossible even after the explosion of the nonfunctioning satellites. Therefore, the explosion proposal cannot work.