Using armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines entails an unavoi

Official Explanation

There are two possible methods by which to remove buried land mines; detonating them with armored vehicles or disarming them by hand. We are told that the risk is higher with the manual method, and that, therefore, this method is preferred in terms of risk reduction. To weaken this argument, a statement must add an additional element to the comparison between the two methods that shows manual disarmament to be less risky than previously thought.

Choice A states that manual disarmers can be trained to reduce their risk of injury or fatality. This choice undermines the argument's conclusion that armored vehicles are clearly the safer method; if manual disarmers were better trained, this choice implies, then manual disarmament may be as safe as armored detonation.

Choice B refers to the seriousness of injuries instigated by the two different methods. The risk of injury or fatality does not necessarily correlate to the serious of such injuries. Furthermore, this choice states that manual disarmament causes more serious injuries, which does not weaken the claim that this method should be used less.

Choice C states that it may be easy to organize an effort to step up armored vehicle disarmament. This choice can only strengthen the argument, by ensuring that the strategy recommended is feasible.

Choice D refers to land destabilization. The argument is based on the risk of injury and there is nothing given to relate land destabilization to the risk of injury. So, this choice does not affect the argument.

Choice E states that one method is less costly than the other. Cost plays no role in this argument, so this statement cannot weaken the argument's claim.

Answer: A