In 1990, television owners in the town of Mayfield received only one public station. During an average prime-time hour, that station attracted 75,000 viewers. In 1991, another public station began broadcasting in the region. In 1991, the two stations together attracted 150,000 viewers during an average prime-time hour. With two public stations represented on television, the number of Mayfield residents who watched public prime-time programming doubled. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the author's conclusion?
A. The second public station is received by many television viewers outside the Mayfield area, and the station's figures for prime-time viewership represent viewers from its entire broadcast region.B. The cost of opening and operating a second public station in the region has placed a serious financial burden on the state.C. In a recent survey, one in ten Mayfield residents reported watching public television for the first time in 1991.D. The two stations show the same programming during prime time, although their schedules vary slightly during nonprime-time hours.E. It was hoped by public station programmers that, in 1991, the two stations would attract 190,000 viewers during an average prime-time hour.

A). The second public station is received by many television viewers outside the Mayfield area, and the station's figures for prime-time viewership represent viewers from its entire broadcast region.

Explanation:

The evidence presented through the first option most likely incapacitates the author's conclusion regarding 'two public stations doubling the number of Mayfield residents who watched public prime-time programming' as it contradicts the claim by stating that 'the stations figures are entire broadcast region.' It suggests that the conclusion is not necessarily true and implies that the viewership increased outside the Mayfield area. Thus, option A weakens the efficacy of the argument.