The best answer is option C.Premise 1: During the past 20 years, computer scientists focused increasingly on starting and running successful businesses.
Counter-Premise: However, since businesses must be profitable, computer scientists must focus on developing products that generate profit.
Conclusion: Consequently, computer science has lost its creative aspect.
From the argument above, it has been concluded that computer science has lost its creative aspect. A weakener of this argument is that
some aspects of computer science or computer programs can be both profitable and creative. When you negative this weakener, you get
no aspect of computer science or computer programs can be both profitable and creative. The assumption for this argument must be one that categorically states that
no aspect of computer science or computer programs can be both profitable and creative.Option C states that a program cannot be both creative and profitable, and this is in line with the above. The best answer must, therefore, be option C.
Why not option B? B states that
some computer scientists entirely disregarded creativity and chose instead to pursue profit.
Some means from one computer scientist to all computer scientists. So what about if it is only 20% of computer scientists that entirely disregarded creativity and chose instead to pursue profit? What if the other 80% develop programs aimed only at creativity alone? This argument will still not hold water in such a circumstance. Hence B is not a necessary assumption on which the argument depends.