The spokesman for the Ministry of Transport announced that the ministry has decided to pave roads with underground wiring as an alternative to spreading salt on the ice- and snow-covered roads. However, an official in the Ministry, who opposes the Ministry’s decision, was quoted saying that due to the high initial costs, the project cannot be cost-effective .
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the official's objection to the Ministry’s decision?
Correct!
[[snippet]]This answer choice attacks the argument's assumption by showing that a third of the Ministry budget can be saved if the underground wiring is installed in roads. By doing so, the new system isn't just a waste of money - it also saves a fortune spent on road maintenance, a fact which weakens the officials objection.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the official's position as it does not discuss the cost of the project and its effectiveness in relation to that cost. The underground wiring system may be effective but if it costs too much it's not cost-effective.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the official's position as it does not discuss the cost of the project, only its importance. According to this, either underground wiring in roads or spreading salt would do, as long as the roads are clear of ice.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice supports the official's view by confirming the assumption that the underground wiring system does not save in expenses. If the roads still need salt to be cleared of ice, the underground wiring system is indeed wasteful. However, you were required to weaken the official's view rather than strengthen it.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice actually strengthens the official as it states that the price of electricity is rising. This makes the option of wiring roads more expensive. However, you were meant to weaken the official's objection by showing that the wiring system is not as wasteful as the official claims it to be.