I think the confusion is the distinction between weakening a conclusion and destroying a conclusion.
Or maybe I'm just not understanding......hear me out.
If we go back to the basics, any passage/ sentence will (broadly) have 3 parts.
Premise, Assumption and Conclusion.
In order to weaken a conclusion you have to attack the assumption or the link. In this question, the link is first day movie goers sentiment about the movie and the future success in terms of viewership.
First day movie goer disappointment ---(assumption/link)---
Viewership.
So given the link (above), the assumption is that first day movie goers sentiment/opinion
influences future movie goers or viewership. Because if first day movie goers opinions
does not influence viewership, then the conclusion falls apart.
The goal is the weaken this link by choosing a statement that either shows a lack of influence (breaking it) or a statement that shows a casual relationship rather than a direct one.
D- Weakens the conclusion by showing casual link of first day movie goers may not be indicative of future viewershipE- Breaks the conclusion by saying there is a strong reason to believe there is no relationship between first movie goers and future viewership.So does breaking conclusion the same thing as weakening it?
And if so, break>weaken?
At least from what I've learned on multiple prep material, the answer is yes. Breaking the conclusion is weakening the conclusion and if faced with both, you choose breaking the conclusion. BUT. You can also argue that we're not asked "what would destroy the conclusion." We're asked what would weaken it.
Either way, this question is tricky since GMAT Qs are much less subtle when it comes to the correct answer. The gap between the last 2 choices (given that you've crossed out 3) is larger than what's being presented here.
If there's any logical step I missed, please correct me.