A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized
B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease
C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years
D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago
E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years

my concern: i want to understand as how C weakens the argument? option C states that percentage of people who have been affected by this disease has remained same. this implies that if the The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago THEN all we know for sure is that POPULATION of this town might have increased. but how does it prevent us from increasing the funding ?