A certain experimental fungicide causes no harm to garden plants if it is diluted at least to ten parts water to one part fungicide. Moreover, this fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate it completely from rose plants. Thus this fungicide, as long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants, without entailing any risk of harm to the other garden plants.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. There is no alternative method to application of fungicide for eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants without harming other garden plants.

B. When the fungicide is sufficiently diluted, it does not pose any harm to people, animals, or beneficial garden insects.

C. Powdery mildew is the only fungal infection affecting rose plants.

D. There are no antidotes available if the fungicide is not sufficiently diluted inadvertently.

E. The effectiveness of the fungicide on powedery mildew does not depend on its concentration levels greater than one part in ten parts of water.

Which do you think is the answer first, anon?

I think neither fits Emotion: smile
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.

Also I would be interested to know what the argument is in the text, IYO.
Hi, Anonymous people,

This thread is a little confusing. Are the anonymous people who replied the same person as the one who posted the original query?

Hi Clive

Yes. Could you please make your comment to my question, please?

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
First, provide your response. It would be helpful if you commented on why you thought it was correct, or at least why you thought the others were wrong.