Hanlon’s Razor cautions that one should never attribute to

[BTGmoderatorDC]

Hanlon's Razor cautions that one should never attribute to malice that which can instead be attributed to stupidity. But my roommate knew that my prize cactus should only be watered once a week, so it is clear that by overwatering the plant he intended to destroy it.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?

Intending to destroy a plant is a form of malice.
The roommate resented being obliged to water the cactus.
The roommate expressed great sorrow upon being told that he was responsible for the death of the cactus.
The roommate is a member of a local botanical society.
The roommate was unaware of the amount of water the cactus was to be given.

OA E

Source: Veritas Prep

[deloitte247]

Here, we need to find the flaws in the given argument reasoning.
Premise: Hanlon's prize cactus should only be watered once a week.
Conclusion: Having been told that the prize cactus should be watered once a week, overwatering the plant is an intention by the roommate to destroy it.

OPTION A - INCORRECT
This doesn't weaken the argument because according to the passage, intending to destroy a plant is a form of malice supports the argument.

OPTION B - INCORRECT
If true, the argument is not concerned with whether or not the roommate resented his obligation to water the cactus.

OPTION C - INCORRECT
The remorseful expression of the roommate proved Hanlon's statement right about overwatering the cactus.

OPTION D - INCORRECT
This option is wrong because it wasn't stated in the argument if the roommate was from the local botanical society. Therefore, it doesn't weaken the argument.

OPTION E - CORRECT
This option weakens the argument because Hanlon declared in the argument that the roommate was aware that the prize cactus should only be watered once a week.