In the past decade, floods along certain coastal regions of the Unite

Conclusion of the argument: Property damage caused by coastal storms is likely to cost property owners and insurance companies significantly more money in the next decade than in the past decade.

Support Provided: Severe storms resulted in extraordinary property damage and unprecedented costs for property owners and insurance companies. Meteorologists predict that the number of such storms will increase significantly during the next decade.

We have to strengthen this argument in line with the author's reasoning/support provided for the conclusion.

A. Severe storms that cause flooding in the coastal regions usually occur in the springtime.

The conclusion doesn't depend on what time of the year the floods occur. Hence, we can eliminate this option.

B. Regional economic trends are attracting increasing numbers of people into these coastal regions.

This is a good one. If more people are attracted to the coastal regions, it's likely they will be impacted by the severe storms. We already know from the premise that meteorologists predict that the number of such storms will increase significantly during the next decade. Hence, an increasing number of people is likely to be impacted. The greater the number of people impacted, the greater will be the damage caused. Hence, property damage caused by coastal storms is likely to cost property owners and insurance companies significantly more money in the next decade than in the past decade. We can keep this option.

C. Although storms are likely to increase in frequency over the next decade, the severity of storms is not expected to increase.

This option goes against the conclusion and weakens it. We have to support the conclusion that property damage caused by coastal storms is likely to cost property owners and insurance companies significantly more money in the next decade than in the past decade.

D. In areas where flooding was the worst, property owners chose to move rather than rebuild in the same location.

This option doesn't support the conclusion or at best weakens it. If the property owners do not choose to settle in the areas where flooding was the worst, they will not likely be impacted greatly by the subsequent storms. Hence, the property damage in the next decade will not be greater than that of the previous decade. We can eliminate this option.

E. Building codes in many coastal communities have increased the required distance between the shoreline and newly constructed residences.

We don't have sufficient information to asses how will this affect the property owners. One way to reason out is if the distance between the shoreline has increased the home are farther away from shore and hence, the damage is likely to be less in the future. Hence, the statement weakens the argument. However, we can't be 100% sure of this conclusion. We can however be sure that this option lends no support to the author's conclusion. We can eliminate this option.

Option B