Correct Answer:
C
The argument concludes that the new therapeutic program is not justified because its cost ($12,500 per person) exceeds the average cost of emergency treatment for injuries from falls ($11,000 per person). This conclusion relies on the assumption that the $11,000 figure represents the total cost of treating fall-related injuries. To weaken this argument, we need evidence suggesting that the actual cost of treating such injuries may be higher than $11,000.
Option C states that long-term pain medication—a frequent result of fall-related injuries—is not included in the $11,000 average cost of emergency treatment. If this additional cost is substantial, the true cost of treating injuries from falls could exceed $12,500, making the therapeutic program potentially cost-effective. By revealing an unaccounted-for expense, Option C undermines the economist's cost comparison and thus weakens the argument.