I'll take a shot at it ...

My version of the conclusion: Investor-owned hospitals are a better way of delivering medical care than are nonprofit hospitals because they require less public investment in the form of tax breaks, use fewer employees, and have higher occupancy levels.

So what would weaken/undermine the conclusion? The argument is based on the delivery of medical care. If investor-owned hospitals have higher occupancy levels than nonprofit hospitals the argument could be made that nonprofits are more efficient at the delivery of medical care with fewer patients staying in the hospital thus making it possible to care for more patients.

A) This strengthens the conclusion.

B) I like this answer. If patients recover quicker in nonprofit hospitals than do those in investor-owned hospitals that means the delivery of care is better and more efficient. Moreover, non-profits may have lower occupancy rates because of the delivery of medical care is "better" or more efficient.

C) Who cares about fundraising? Does fundraising make nonprofit hospitals better at delivering medical care?

D) This is interesting ... doctors make more in nonprofit hospitals ... one could argue that this makes delivering medical care more inefficient.

E) Can donations make a hospital more efficient or better at delivering medical care? Possibly.

I'm going with B. What's the OA?

OA is B.

Good job franklin, kudos for you!

And I think it is okay to destroy the conclusion in the CR weakening question. Correct me if I'm wrong.