急问一道逻辑题

Lightbox, Inc. owns almost all of the movie theaters in WashingtonCountry and has announced plans to double the number of movie sreens it has in the county within five years. Yet attendance at Lightbos's theater is only large enough for  porfitability now and the country's population is not expected to increase over the next ten years. Clearly, therefore, if there is indeed not increase in population, Lightbox's new screens are unlikely to prove profitable.

what of the following, if true about Washington Country, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Though little change in the size of the population is expected , a pronounced shift toward a younger, more affluent, and more entertainment-orented population is expected to occur.

C.In selecting the mix of moives shown at its theaters, Lightbox's policy is to aviod those that appeal to only a small segment of the movie going population.

答案选A，但是C为什么不对呢？

我觉得Ｃ选项完全是无关因素，而且选项中说避免小众化的影片不能weaken题目中的结论啊

文中很明显，结论是一个条件型的结论（Clearly, therefore, if there is indeed not increase in population, Lightbox's new screens are unlikely to prove profitable.）条件型的结论weaken的方法就是充分条件成立，必要条件不一定成立，或者举个反例。

答案貌似很明显了～其实我也有点糊涂呢，等待大牛更加精彩的解答

Conclusion of the arguer: no increase in population, no profit

Weaken: A: no increase in populaition, still profit

                 E: other factors, profit

My opinion: the answer A is better: by admitting the evidence, the answer A weakens the conclusion.

As said by XDF, the evidence could not mormally be refuted unless it is fould fausse.

UP， 关键字要看POPULATION