The argument we are to weaken is that the high wages paid to Valitanian (where do they get these names?) elected officials have corrupted them. The evidence for this charge: Why, simply that high wages always attract corrupt individuals, those most interested in lining their pockets. To the author, that is a truism, but she provides no real evidence against these Valitanian elected officials. Therefore, we can weaken the indictment against them if we can somehow show them to be above petty financial matters.

And that’s just what (E) does. If (E) is true—if most of these officials could make more money elsewhere—then the cord between this evidence and this conclusion is severed; the officials may still be corrupt, but not for the reason proposed. In the face of (E), the author would have to come up with alternative evidence for the conclusion; and that is proof positive that (E) has weakened the argument.

(A) Spending one’s own cash in the hopes of cashing in big upon election might be considered a reasonable investment, even for the corrupt money-hungry politicians portrayed by the author. Nothing in (A) weakens the argument; candidates could spend some of their own money on their campaigns and still be mostly in politics for the high salaries.

(B) Term length being unmentioned in the argument, we cannot conclude what effect, if any, a four-year term would have on officials’ integrity.

(C) The argument is about whether money attracts worse candidates, not more candidates. Their number is irrelevant.

(D) may well describe most of Valitania’s politicians, in which case it provides some support for the conclusion.