Please explain

Could someone address the question below? I have the exact same question

Hi there! Thanks for your posts. Let's break down the stimulus first. It presents an argument: the conclusion is "weapons production plants must be viewed as equally wasteful of taxpayer dollars." What support is provided for this assertion? In other words, what do the given premises say? (1) The weapons plant it plans to reopen will violate at least 69 environmental, health, and safety laws. (2) Yet the government has decided to reopen the plan and exempt it from compliance, even though the weapons to be produced there could be produced at the same cost at a safer facility. Notice how neither of these premises says anything about wasteful spending. The second premise talks about "the same cost," not "cheaper" or "less expensive," so it doesn't establish wasteful spending. And the first premise is about legal violations, without directly connecting those violations to any kind of wasteful spending. For this reason, answer choice (C) is correct - the reasoning in this argument "relies on evidence that does not directly address the issue of wasteful spending." Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.