It is true that it is against international law to sell plut

It is true that it is against international law to sell plutonium to countries that do not yet have nuclear weapons.But if United States companies do not do so,companies in other countries will.
Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure?
(A) It is true that it is against the police department’s policy to negotiate with kidnappers.But if the police want to prevent loss of life,they must negotiate in some cases.
(B) it is true that it is illegal to refuse to register for military service.But there is a long tradition in the United States of conscientious objection to serving in the armed forces.
(C) It is true that it is illegal for a government official to participate in a transaction in which there is an apparent conflict of interest.But if the facts are examined carefully,it will clearly be seen that there was no actual conflict of interest in the defendant’s case.
(D) It is true that it is against the law to burglarize people’s homes.But someone else certainly would have burglarized that house if the defendant had not done so first.
(E) It is true that company policy forbids supervisors to fire employees without two written warnings.But there have been many supervisors who have disobeyed this policy.
我错选了A,答案是选D.我没不太明白这个逻辑,

题干：
向不拥有核武器的国家贩卖钚无疑是违反国际法的行为.然而如果美国公司不这么做的话,别国公司也会这么做的.
下面是抽象出其逻辑结构：
某种行为是违反法规的,但是你不做总有人做.前面的部分没有疑问了,就是某种行为不合适.后面的部分要体现出一定会有人做,实施者非此即彼.
A选项是说警察在某种情况下会这样做,这并没有说实施者非此即彼,而是说某些情况会做,某些情况下不会.
D是正入屋行窃违法,但是如果被告没做的话也会有人去那栋房子行窃的.这就是实施者非此即彼.
B和E是一样的,说总有些人做了违法违规的事,但没有非此即彼的概念在里面.
C说其实仔细看,被告案例并没有违法.这个显然不是.