Critical Reasoning

The extremely high cost of running a world class
zoo is limiting what animals are seen by the public.
A few, very wealthy families now determine what
animals can be acquired and seen. Zoo administrators
should choose what animals are displayed. If
we reduce the budget so that the zoo is supported
only by ticket sales and gift shop receipts, the public
will see less exotic animals.
Which statement below, if true, would weaken the
argument?
(A) The combination of ticket sales and gift shop
receipts cannot match the amount of money
donated by wealthy families.
(B) Wealthy families will stop supporting the zoo
if they are denied all control over how their
money is used.
(C) Without the support of wealthy families, the
zoo cannot afford to produce any new
exhibits and will have to sell some animals.
(D) Some zoos have active breeding programs
and literally "grow their own" animals.
(E) Some people go to the zoo regularly-not to
see specific animals or new exhibits.

IMO D
as zoos grow animals, public can see more exotic animals also if "they are grown"

Even I went with D, but OA is [spoiler]C[/spoiler]. Just wanted to check if my thinking was correct. The OE, I feel, in the pretext of weakening the argument, takes a wrong interpretation of the given argument and chooses the OA. Don't know if someone else has a different opinion. Posting the OE too.

[spoiler]The argument is that if costs were reduced to
the point that new exhibits could not be produced
(and animals acquired) without sponsors, the zoo
would be able to continue without sponsors.
Choice (C) attacks this claim by stating that
without sponsors no new exhibits can be
produced and some animals will be sold. The
answer is (C).[/spoiler]

One point to notice is that answer D contains "some zoos" and we are talking about "world class zoos". Also, "some" is a dreaded word in such questions. But I found it better than C. C seems to Strengthen rather than Weaken.

where did you get this question from? I also chose D.

nileshdalvi wrote:The extremely high cost of running a world class
zoo is limiting what animals are seen by the public.
A few, very wealthy families now determine what
animals can be acquired and seen. Zoo administrators
should choose what animals are displayed. If
we reduce the budget so that the zoo is supported
only by ticket sales and gift shop receipts, the public
will see less exotic animals.
Which statement below, if true, would weaken the
argument?
(A) The combination of ticket sales and gift shop
receipts cannot match the amount of money
donated by wealthy families.
(B) Wealthy families will stop supporting the zoo
if they are denied all control over how their
money is used.
(C) Without the support of wealthy families, the
zoo cannot afford to produce any new
exhibits and will have to sell some animals.
(D) Some zoos have active breeding programs
and literally "grow their own" animals.
(E) Some people go to the zoo regularly-not to
see specific animals or new exhibits.

Here's the argument: Due to high costs, ZOO administrators are reducing the budget for it's maintenance so that they can run the zoo with their own choice of display but with less exotic animals! i.e. ZOO can run without the support of wealthy families.

Option:C, weakens the argument by attacking 'Without the support of wealthy families, the
zoo cannot afford to produce any new exhibits and will have to sell some animals"...
now this leads to DEPENDENCE of ZOO on Wealthy Families..which weakens the actual argument.

but they also say that ' the public will see less exotic animals. '

This means, they already knew that there will be less exotic animals. Selling few means less animals. Option C looks like strengthening statement rather than a weakening statement

@Naresh: As saketk mentioned, if you are not buying new animals and selling old animals (logically more exotic to get more money), people will see less exotic animals. Also, it is mentioned that some animals will be sold, not that the whole zoo is empty. So it can in no ways be said that zoo will not run without the support of wealthy people. This tends to actually support the argument that without wealthy people, visitors will see less exotic animals, but the angle here is different.
Not because zoo has become poor to buy exotic animals, but because it has to sell off exotic animals to maintain it or buy atleast more less exotic animals.

Except for that "some", I think there is nothing wrong with D. If the zoo has active breeding program, it can still survive without wealthy people. So the argument that zoo cannot get exotic animals without wealthy people or zoo cannot run without wealthy people is undermined.

@saketk: This is from GMAT Prep Nova which contains mostly LSAT level questions.

Can someone please post the complete official explanation for this question.

I also fell for D but in fact "SOME" makes is out from the consideration.

@saketk: I have already posted the OE above. There is no other OE.

@gunjan: Eventhough "some" might take it out of consideration, does not mean that C makes a correct answer? If you talk about the best answer than D looks much appropriate to me even if it has some. It cannot reject the possibility that all world class zoos come under the category of some mentioned above.

I am still looking for a convincing answer for why C is correct as per the OA?