If we want to weaken an argument, we first must find a LOGICAL GAP in the argument.

Premise: Government supplement of low-paying jobs is equal to government assistance provided to those not employed.

Conclusion: Unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Logical Gap: The argument assumes that pay is the only consideration in taking a job. Are there other reasons people would want to work rather than not? Are there intangible values like self/community respect? Insurance benefits? Ability to find better jobs?

In order to weaken, the correct answer will have to point to a benefit besides pay that people will get from a low-paying job.

A. at any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.

This clearly shows an advantage of taking a low-paying job - it leads to a higher-paying job. Correct.

B. The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.

Be very careful of any math language on CR! Here, we need to carefully consider what "average" means. Average starting wage must be presumed (since we're not given any constraints) to mean the average of ALL starting jobs - doctors, lawyers, etc. This includes many jobs that are much higher-paying than the low-wage jobs we're talking about in this argument. That certainly doesn't mean, though, that the people choosing between unemployment and low-wage jobs would have access to the higher-paying starting jobs.

By extending the pool to all jobs, this answer choice doesn't allow us to compare the two options discussed in the passage.