Explanation

Reading the question: we learn about the deadly Disease X. Since we have a brief argument, we can use term matching here: what terms are left poorly matched between evidence and conclusion?



Creating a filter: the last row gives us a mismatch. In the evidence, we have the phrase "completely eradicate the cause of the disease," and in the conclusion we have "will be able to carry on business in the future without incidence." This is the shaky logical connection. Maybe the therapy will have to be applied to each new generation of cattle? We look for something along the lines--it doesn't attack the therapy so much as the connection between therapy and no incidence in the future.

Applying the filter: (A) and (B) do not concern the connection between therapy and intended outcome. Neither do (C) and (D). Choice (E) is suggesting that there is some other cause of Disease X. In such a case, the therapy could work perfectly, but the intended outcome might not manifest. This might seem to contradict the prompt, at first; doesn't the prompt say that the therapy eradicates the cause? On closer inspection, we can see that the prompt says, "A [single] genetic cause of the disease has been identified..." The prompt leaves open the possibility that there is another cause of the disease, beyond the genetic one that has been identified and which is addressed by the therapy. The correct answer is (E).