The argument that investing in heat-resilient buildings yields long-term savings would be undermined if

• A. There were immediate negative consequences offsetting savings.
• B. The long-term savings were assured in all cases.
• C. The upfront costs outweighed long-term savings in many cases.
• D. Financing was readily available.

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is whether a claim about long-term savings from an investment remains credible when you consider the initial cost. The argument hinges on the balance between what you spend upfront and what you save over time. If, in many cases, the upfront costs exceed the future savings, the investment isn’t reliably worthwhile, so the claim that it yields long-term savings falls apart. In other words, the net benefit becomes questionable, undermining the overall argument.

Other situations might not undermine it as directly: for example, if long-term savings were guaranteed, or if financing were easy, those would either bolster or not affect the core assertion. The most direct way to weaken the argument is showing that the initial outlay often outweighs the future benefits.