Quote:
Researchers concluded that the old Megapower formula contained natural kiwi extract, but the new formula does not. - Meaning that old formula required import of Kiwi and the new one does not.
We need to support this claim.
A) Some South American countries have begun to grow kiwi fruit successfully. (Do those countries have Megapower supplement? Don't know. Hence, inconsistent)
B) United States chemists have started development of a synthetic kiwi extract. (Does the new formula require Kiwi? - Don't know. Hence, Inconsistent)
C) The manufacturers of Megapower chose not to renew their contract with the Tasmanian kiwi growers. (Opposite. Meaning that they still require Kiwi.)
D) Imports of kiwi fruit have fallen in the country where Megapower is manufactured. (Meaning that due to new formula, this country does not require Kiwi. It does bolden our conclusion)
E) There was a marked drop in sales of a number of formerly profitable items that used kiwi as an ingredient.(Out of scope)
Hence, D
Hope this helps.
For C) - my understanding is that the phrase "chose not to renew" indicates that Megapower previously had a contract with Tasmanian kiwi growers (makes sense - Megapower previously needed kiwi extract), but this contract is no longer needed - that is, Megapower is no longer buying kiwis from Tasmanian kiwi growers. So, this indicates that Megapower is probably no longer needing kiwi. So, wouldn't this be in line with the researcher's conclusion, rather than opposite?
A couple of other commenters have said that technically, Megapower could have gained contracts with other kiwi growers. However, we are told that Tasmania's export constitutes a substantial portion of the world supply of kiwis, so it would be difficult for Megapower to get additional kiwi elsewhere. Without additional information, there is no reason to believe that Megapower was able to get kiwi from elsewhere.
Moreover, an argument in the same vein can be used against D) - that is, it could be that other importers (in the country that Megapower is manufactured in) reduced their demand. We are not given any information on how significant an impact Megapower has on the share of imports.
It seems to me that the counterargument against D) is actually stronger than the counterargument against C), since for D) there's no reason to go either way with the counterargument, whereas with C) we are told in the passage that Tasmania constitutes a substantial portion of the world supply, weakening the counterargument that Megapower could have just bought kiwis from elsewhere.