The conclusion of the argument is that "we do not see our best athletes in the Olympics" due to athletes being influenced by financial gain and the Olympics being for amateurs. We are looking for an answer choice that weakens this conclusion. Let's evaluate the options:
(A) The publicity and fame that can be achieved by competing in the Olympics makes athletes more "marketable" by agents and potential sponsors, while allowing the athletes to retain their amateur status. - This option weakens the conclusion by suggesting that athletes can gain financial benefits even while retaining their amateur status, which could motivate them to participate in the Olympics.
(B) The winning of a race is not as important as participating.
- This option doesn't directly address the financial motivation of athletes and how it affects their participation in the Olympics.
(C) There is a widely held belief that our best Olympic athletes already receive enough in terms of promotion and sponsorship.
- This option, if anything, supports the idea that athletes are financially motivated and suggests that they are already receiving promotion and sponsorship.
(D) It has been suggested that professional athletes should be allowed to compete in the games.
- This option does address the issue of athletes' participation in the Olympics, but it doesn't necessarily weaken the argument's conclusion about financial motivation.
(E) Athletics as an entertainment is like any other entertainment job and deserves a financial reward.
- This option supports the idea that athletes deserve financial rewards, which aligns with the argument's premise that athletes are motivated by financial gain.
Among the given options, (A) is the only one that weakens the conclusion by providing an alternative way for athletes to gain financial benefits without necessarily compromising their amateur status. Therefore, the answer is (A).