Which statement would most undermine the argument that the plan will save money?

• A. It relies on a small sample of data.
• B. The plan includes mandatory costs that may not be financed.
• C. It fails to consider maintenance or long-term costs that could offset savings.
• D. It is based on a pilot in a different city.

Answer: (C)

The main idea being tested is that evaluating a plan’s money‑saving claim must account for all costs over time, not just upfront or short‑term figures. The statement that most undermines the argument is the one pointing out that maintenance or long‑term costs aren’t considered, because those ongoing expenses could offset the savings and even swallow any projected benefit. When you ignore how maintenance, replacements, or other lasting costs will impact the total cost of ownership, you’re not truly testing whether the plan saves money in the long run. That direct challenge to the completeness of the cost analysis makes the savings claim far less trustworthy.

Other concerns are relevant but don’t strike at the net savings as directly. For example, basing estimates on a small data sample questions the reliability of the numbers but doesn’t necessarily show the plan won’t save money if you had better data. A pilot in a different city raises questions about whether results would transfer elsewhere, affecting generalizability rather than the core question of total long‑term savings. And pointing to mandatory costs that may not be financed highlights feasibility, yet doesn’t as clearly reveal whether true long‑term savings would occur once all costs are included.