Answer C

@Julie, (C) supports Mr. Fring's decision because it directly ties the value of expert consultants to their fees - "the more they cost, the more they can be blamed", whereas Mr. Blatt merely justifies the high cost of expert consultants but does not establish direct correlation between their value and the fees. In this scenario, if Mr. Blatt is right, an expert consulting firm that reduces its fees would see its business grow, because its value to the management is still equally high even though their fees are now lower. The fact that the opposite happens suggests that Mr. Fring is right, and their services are no longer as valuable to the management.

Is it correct to generalize that the best way to go about this question is to look for the answer choice that most weakens Mr. Blatt's argument and therefore strengthens Ms. Fring's?

Hey jle20, I am not an instructor but I believe using this technique will get you stuck sometimes as some answers like B) or E) don't do anything to both arguments. As Mehran explained in the other comments, B) doesn't tell us anything on why Mr Blatt or Ms Fring would chose to be helped with a consultant or not. Therefore, it doesn't weaken Mr. Blatt's argument. Hope it helps, Emma.

@jle20, I wouldn't generalize too much about looking for a choice that weakens the first argument and strengthens the second either. It really depends on the question!