Does the possible challenge weaken the argument?

[AsadA969]

A famous singer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer's well-known rendition of a certain song. As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, advertising costs will rise, since famous singers' services cost more than those of their imitators.
The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Most people are unable to distinguish a famous singer's rendition of a song from a good imitator's rendition of the same song.
(B) Commercials using famous singers are usually more effective than commercials using imitators of famous singers.
(C) The original versions of some well-known songs are unavailable for use in commercials.
(D) Advertising firms will continue to use imitators to mimic the physical mannerisms of famous singers.
(E) The advertising industry will use well-known renditions of songs in commercials.

This one is the assumption question. Ron, when we try to solve any assumption question, then it comes some possible challenges in our head. Does the possible challenge weaken the argument?
does the below weaken the argument?
>>The industry will use something different criteria for advertising, which costs the low cost than the famous singer.
>>There are some workers (they are paid only as a worker not for singing song) in this industry who sings exactly like the famous singer and they’ll be used for advertisement.
Thanks...
source: i don't know, but collected from Thursdays with Ron study hall 4th March, 2010

[RonPurewal]

>>The industry will use something different criteria for advertising, which costs the low cost than the famous singer.

^^ here, i assume you're trying to say "the commercials will use something other than well-known renditions of songs".

if that's what you mean, then, this challenge will give you the correct answer (E) to the problem.

[RonPurewal]

>>There are some workers (they are paid only as a worker not for singing song) in this industry who sings exactly like the famous singer and they’ll be used for advertisement

.

^^ this isn't a thing.
if someone (other than a famous singer) sings one of these songs in a commercial, and that person gets paid for the commercial, then, by definition, that person is a paid imitator.
the passage has already said that imitators aren't allowed anymore. so, this isn't a valid challenge.

[RonPurewal]

...and don't forget to say which choice is the OA when you post questions here!
this is in the forum rules; please follow the rules.
thanks.

[AsadA969]

...and don't forget to say which choice is the OA when you post questions here!
this is in the forum rules; please follow the rules.
thanks.

I forgot it. Sorry. I edited the post in which the the correct answer is given with BOLD letter.

[AsadA969]

>>There are some workers (they are paid only as a worker not for singing song) in this industry who sings exactly like the famous singer and they’ll be used for advertisement

.

^^ this isn't a thing.
if someone (other than a famous singer) sings one of these songs in a commercial, and that person gets paid for the commercial, then, by definition, that person is a paid imitator.
the passage has already said that imitators aren't allowed anymore. so, this isn't a valid challenge.

That means:
In assumption question, the assumption will be hidden in the argument. But, in Strengthen and weaken question, the assumption will not be hidden any more, we have to attack on conclusion of the argument. We've to dismiss the conclusion by hook or by crook. And the dismissing pieces will be the weaken of the argument. Right, Ron?

[RonPurewal]

i have no idea what you are asking.

...but, anything that "strengthens" or "weakens" an argument will ALWAYS be new information. in other words, it will ALWAYS be outside the current boundaries of what has already been stated.
it will NEVER address information that has already been addressed/stated in the argument.

this is really just common sense. for instance, if you're on a jury, and someone asks "What would make the prosecution's argument stronger?", then, clearly, this can't refer to any of the evidence or exhibits you've already seen.

[RonPurewal]

...and, no, you don't have to "attack the conclusion directly" (if that's what you are asking -- again, i can't really tell what you are asking).

anything that weakens any step of the reasoning leading up to the conclusion is a "weakener of the conclusion", since the conclusion depends on the whole line of reasoning.