The implicit (intermediate) conclusion here is that, for people who live in small city apartments, cats are more convenient, more affordable, and better-suited than dogs. Let's tease out some of this argument's assumptions:
1. Cat food is cheaper than dog food; therefore, cats cost less to take care of than dogs.
2. The fact that cats use litter boxes makes caring for them, on the whole, more convenient than caring for dogs.
3. Convenience, size, loudness and maintenance cost are the main factors that indicate how well-suited an animal is for small apartment living.
The conclusion, of course, is stated in the last line: a person who lives in a small city apartment should get a cat instead of a dog.
We can undermine any of these assumptions directly with contradictory statements like "many dogs are smaller than cats," or "cats can be louder than dogs during restless nights." To undermine an assumption using additional premise—as opposed to direct negation—we must take an extra step. After assessing whether the given information supports or refutes the argument claim, we must determine its relation to the criteria present in the argument.
The negative consequence of keeping a cat in a small apartment, as described in this choice, strongly undermines assumption 2 (the idea that cats will cost less money than dogs overall). Choice D indeed weakens the ultimate conclusion that cats are better-suited (than are dogs) for people who live in small city apartments. Hence D is correct.