Premise: There was an unusual meager harvest of cocoa beans this year because of a rare type of fungus that killed off many cocoas in Brazil.

Conclusion: The retail price of chocolate is certain to increase within six months.

We are looking for the option that can be used to prove a point, such that it will counter the resolution of in passage from happening. So, let's examine each option carefully so as to find which is best fit to weaken this argument.

Option A - incorrect:
Of course, there is every tendency that consumers will purchase other sweets as an alternative if the price of chocolate increases but that doesn't negate the fact that the price of chocolate will increase. Hence, this claim is wrong.

Option B - incorrect:
It's evident from the passage that fungus that killed many cocoa trees in Brazil is responsible for the proposition on the increase in chocolate within six months. While the researchers have discovered an effective method to kill the fungus, have they tested it out yet? NO. Will they test it now or within the next six months or after the next six months to see its effectiveness? NO. Therefore, we can't rely on this option to weaken this argument as there is no certainty.

Option C - incorrect:
This claim is not true as the passage does not specify if some varieties of chocolate will be affected more than others.

Option D - incorrect:
The fact that the price of chocolate has decreased steadily for three years does not hinder the retail price of chocolate from increasing due to the situation at hand.

Option E - correct:
There is no point why the price of retail chocolate should increase within the next six months when most of the chocolate in stores was manufactured from cocoa purchased two years earlier and not the recent high-price cocoa. Therefore, there should be no increase in the retail price of chocolate within the next six months as the chocolates in stores were not produced from high-price cocoa. Hence, this option is the best fit option to weaken this argument.

Hi!