While airplanes are being repainted, only the painters, wearing special protective gear, can go near them. A newly developed nontoxic plastic film offers an alternative to paint; it can be applied to planes in sheets and requires no special precautions. However, the film takes as long to apply as paint does, and it is neither cheaper nor more durable than paint. Clearly, therefore,
airlines have little incentive for switching to the film.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
We should prove that the film is somehow usefull
A. While the plastic film is being applied to a plane, mechanics can perform other maintenance work on the plane.
Correct. Parallel task \(\to\) less time spent \(\to\) film can be usefull
B. The plastic film withstands extremes of temperature and corrosive chemicals such as exhaust fumes about as well as aircraft paint does.
Incorrect. No advantage \(\to\) no weaken
C. The plastic film can be applied properly only by technicians who have received special training.
Incorrect. Just hire specialized technicians
D. Standard techniques for detecting metal fatigue through a coat of paint cannot be used on planes covered with the plastic film.
Incorrect. Need to develop other techniques to detect metal fatigue \(\to\) strenghten
E. No uses other than that of covering a plane’s exterior have as yet been identified for the newly developed plastic film.
Incorrect. Who cares of other usage?