The playground implements a half-price concession for children's ticket purchases. This is actually a business strategy to attract tourists. The playground does not actually give benefits, because when the admission rate of the playground exceeds 90%, the children's discount tickets on the spot are stopped. However, under the current economic downturn, the admission rate of playgrounds rarely exceeds 90%. There are empty recreational facilities, so why not attract tourists at preferential prices? Which of the following, if true, would most effectively weaken the above argument? (). ['Most children do not choose to go to the playground because of discounted fares.', "In July, the children's discount price was implemented in the playground, and the turnover increased by 30% compared with February when the discount price was not implemented.", "The implementation of children's preferential fares is an expression of the importance attached to minors and should not be evaluated from a utilitarian perspective.", 'When playgrounds implement child discounts, parents discounts should also be implemented.']