In 1985 the city’s LACE w:st="on">LACENAME w:st="on">FineLACENAME> LACENAME w:st="on">ArtsLACENAME> LACETYPE w:st="on">MuseumLACETYPE>LACE> sold 30,000 single-entry tickets. In 1986 the city’s Folk Arts and Interior Design museums opened, and these three museums together sold over 80,000 such tickets that year. These museums were worth the cost, since more than twice as many citizens are now enjoying the arts.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the author’s assertion that more than twice as many citizens are now enjoying the arts?

(A) Most visitors to one museum also visit the other two.

(B) The cost of building the museums will not be covered by revenues generated by the sale of museum tickets.

(C) As the two new museums become better known, even more citizens will visit them.

(D) The city’s Fine Arts Museum did not experience a decrease in single-entry tickets sold in 1986.（A）

(E) Fewer museum entry tickets were sold in 1986 than the museum planners had hoped to sell.

请问为什么要选A？参观其中一个的同时参观另一个跟more than twice as many citizens are now enjoying the arts有什么关系？

原文说的是together sold over 80,000，那么不管参观一个参观两个还是三个，together起来确实是more than twice ，因为80000>30000*2 啊，想不通~~~请大家帮忙！谢谢！

本题削弱的点在于不是它因削弱，原文的逻辑是票卖的多－－＞人们很欣赏．

它因是不是处于欣赏角度才去的，因为去一个地方的一般都捎带着把另外的也逛一下～！

谢谢斑竹！

那意思就是说85年参观Fine Arts Museum 和参观Folk Arts and Interior Design museums 的是同一批人是吗？否则的话85年的人怎么可能把86年的顺便逛一下呢？如果不是同一批人的话就无法weaken了...