This question asks us to select the answer choice that the critics of this report could bring up to weaken the argument made by the report’s authors. To weaken an argument, it helps to identify the argument’s flaws.
So, what are flaws in the argument made by the report’s authors? The authors say that the program only focused on “pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems that plague” the environmental improvement program because the program needed continued government funding, and to get that funding, they had to “regain a reputation for competence.” Notice how these authors conflate the ideas of “pragmatic solutions” and “competence.” This kind of conflation is often referred to as a “equivocation” flaw. The authors assume that they can only gain the reputation for competence by focusing on pragmatic solutions rather than producing a coherent visions for the future of the program. Why wouldn’t producing a coherent visions for the future of the program establish their competence?
Another flaw is that the authors treat “pragmatic solutions” and a “coherent vision” as two separate, unrelated goals. The authors assume they need to focus on pragmatic solutions before they can develop a coherent vision for the future of the program. But what if they’re wrong about that? What if they can’t solve any problems until there’s a coherent vision for the future of the program.
The correct answer, (B), addresses the second flaw. If the program will continue to have problems because it lacks a coherent vision, then the program will not regain its reputation for competence, and it might not receive future government funding.
