The rise of "mega-gym" chains, which offer low membership fees due to their massive scale, has been blamed for the closure of many boutique fitness studios. However, this conclusion is claimed to be incorrect because these mega-gyms currently account for only a tiny fraction of the total fitness center memberships nationwide. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument that the conclusion is incorrect?

As per the argument, it is not true that it is because of the entry of “mega-gyms”, whose large scale keeps their fees low, that many boutique fitness studios have gone out of business. This is because mega-gyms account for only a tiny fraction of the total fitness center memberships. This argument can be best weakened by option (e) which says that to compete with the mega-gyms' widely publicized low fees, boutique studios have been forced to lower their own prices to unsustainable levels. This explains how despite having a small share of the market, the mega-gyms managed to eliminate many boutique studios from the business. Thus, option (e) is the right answer.