Lawmaker: Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing

Understanding the argument -
The Lawmker concludes that by selling the helium, the government can not only pay off that debt (what debt? The debt of buying and storing the Helium) but reduce its overall debt as well. Why? Because
1. The government’s stockpile of helium is worth 25 percent more than the debt accumulated in acquiring and storing it.
2. Raising taxes is not the only means of reducing government debt. So we need to find other options as well.

What is the potential weakness to the conclusion - what if the moment the government starts selling it, another supplier also starts selling to benefit, and this increased supply reduces the incentive? That will shatter the conclusion. So, we need to shield the argument from this weakness.

Option Elimination -

A. The government has no current need for helium. - Ok, Good. Then we can sell it. But even if the government has the need, the critical point is reducing the debt. The government needs or no need; we don't care. Distortion.
B. Twenty-five percent of the debt the government has accumulated in Stockpiling helium is not an insignificant portion of the government’s Total debt. - Sorry, this is totally rubbish. Say the government's buying and storage cost is $100 million. The argument says it's now worth $125 million. This option says 25% of 100 million, i.e., $25 million is not a small amount. Yes, it's not a small amount, but does it affect the argument in any way? No. Distortion.
C. It is not in the lawmaker’s interest to advocate raising taxes as a Means of reducing government debt. - He hasn't denied raising tax rates. He is saying it's not the only option. Out of scope.
D. Attempts to sell the government’s helium will not depress the market Price of helium by more than 25 percent. - ok.
E. The government will not incur any costs in closing its facilities for stockpiling helium. - Out of scope.