CR- The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident

[kartik1979]

The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.

From which of the following statements can the statement above be properly inferred?

A. The Kuwaiti fires' ecological impact was more limited than had been expected. The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at first, and its baleful effects continue to outstrip most predictions.
B. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, though serious enough in ecological terms, have not had any widespread impact on
the global ecology.
C. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires involved the combustion of no carcinogenic materials. The Chernobyl accident
released radio-active debris which has an extremely long half-life and are carcinogenic.
D. The effects of the Chernobyl accident will be felt in the world for thousands of years to come, while most of
the ecological damage done by the Kuwaiti oil-well fires has already been pretty well dissipated.
E. The dire predictions of ecological catastrophe which were made about the fires in the Kuwaiti oil-fields have not been borne out in the subsequent course of events.

I choose Ans as E But the Ans in test was A
my question is In A, The part that refers to Iraq is ok but subsequent lines that state that "The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at firs" how can i infer this from above sentence?( Source 800 tests)

[kartik1979]

Pls ignore, I understand whats wrong with my Ans , I was not unable to comprehend the question rightly

[RonPurewal]

The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, unlike the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, turned out not to be as serious an ecological disaster as was at first feared.

From which of the following statements can the statement above be properly inferred?

A. The Kuwaiti fires' ecological impact was more limited than had been expected. The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at first, and its baleful effects continue to outstrip most predictions.
B. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires, though serious enough in ecological terms, have not had any widespread impact on
the global ecology.
C. The Kuwaiti oil-well fires involved the combustion of no carcinogenic materials. The Chernobyl accident
released radio-active debris which has an extremely long half-life and are carcinogenic.
D. The effects of the Chernobyl accident will be felt in the world for thousands of years to come, while most of
the ecological damage done by the Kuwaiti oil-well fires has already been pretty well dissipated.
E. The dire predictions of ecological catastrophe which were made about the fires in the Kuwaiti oil-fields have not been borne out in the subsequent course of events.

I choose Ans as E But the Ans in test was A
my question is In A, The part that refers to Iraq is ok but subsequent lines that state that "The Chernobyl accident, however, was not taken seriously enough at firs" how can i infer this from above sentence?( Source 800 tests)

glad you understand now.

i've never seen a problem like this on a real, official test. it's like a Draw the Conclusion problem, only backward (with the conclusion in the prompt, and the "passage" in the choices).
has anyone else ever seen anything like this in a real, official problem?