"The paragraph states → To alleviate local economic and humanitarian difficulties, the Bangladesh government has pursued a project to relocate many of these refugees to a small island, called Bhasan Char, off the coast of Bangladesh. "
In order to weaken the argument, we need to find some reason that moving population to Bhasan Char will not ease economic and humanitarian difficulties.
-The description about Bhasan-Char being a low lying island, does not give enough information about whether it will be a bad choice to relocate the refugees. But if the decision by the government is going to add a cost, then i felt , it won’t help ease local economic difficulties. So , I felt that is the better answer.
Your paraphrased argument is accurate, but more specifically, the stated argument is the last line in the passage: This project should alleviate the issues in Cox’s Bazaar as well as offer a new, safe, location for the refugees.
If the new location is not safe (and low-lying islands formed from silt are not safe), then it would certainly weaken the argument.
The fact that the project will cost millions would be the next best choice. But, we don’t know if millions is a lot or a little, as we don’t know what the current refugee camp costs. So this is more of a “maybe” answer if nothing else works.
The other choices are not great fits:
- The new location housing people is good (benefit to moving)
- The current location is dangerous (benefit to moving)
- The new location is one of many options (irrelevant)
I agree with you on the other three answers being clearly wrong. To me it came down the 2 choices about the low lying islands v/s the money spent by the government. Still not completely on board with this one. I might have read and re-read this one.