Statement of a United States copper mining company: Import quotas should be imposed on the less expensive copper mined outside the country to maintain the price of copper in this country; otherwise, our companies will not be able to stay in business.

Response of a United States copper wire manufacturer: United States wire and cable manufacturers purchase about 70 percent of the copper mined in the United States. If the copper prices we pay are not at the international level, our sales will drop, and then the demand for United States copper will go down.

If the factual information presented by both companies is accurate, the best assessment of the logical relationship between the two arguments is that the wire manufacturer’s argument

(A) is self-serving and irrelevant to the proposal of the mining company

(B) is circular, presupposing what it seeks to prove about the proposal of the mining company

(C) shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company’s own business

(D) fails to give a reason why the proposal of the mining company should not be put into effect to alleviate the concern of the mining company for staying in business（C）

(E) establishes that even the mining company’s business will prosper if the mining company’s proposal is rejected

Though I chose the right answer, I still don't understand the meaning. Can someone help?

I would choose C

the argument means what goes around comes around, that is, C is saying that if

we follow what you want us to do, then it is going to hurt yourself at the

end.