A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restauranteur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !