Here we have a Weaken question. Remember, there are two ways to weaken an argument: (1) show that a premise given in support of the conclusion is false and (2) show that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises given in support of the argument, even if all of those premises are true. Every weaken question is an argument, so let's identify the conclusion and premise.
What is our conclusion? Businesses that might have environmentally damaging "accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards."
Why? Well the premise is: "Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents" are higher than the cost of the company responsible just paying "the fine it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident." We're also told that these businesses "value their profits."
Answer choice (A) weakens the connection of the premise to the conclusion. If businesses greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents, then even though they may value their profits, they might not install adequate environmental safeguards because they do not think the probability of a future accident is high. So here, rather than showing that a given premise in support of the conclusion is false, we are showing that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises given in support of the argument, even if those premises are true.
Hope that helped! Let us know if you have any other questions.
