Jackson City has outgrown its current fire station. The existing station cannot be expanded to fit the city' s needs because of building code restrictions. Real estate in the area of the existing station is far more expensive than building space on the west side of the city. Since the price of a building is a considerable portion of the total cost, it would be more economical to move the fire station to the west side of the city. Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument's conclusion? ["City residents have expressed approval of the plan to move the city's fire station to the west side of the city.", 'If the fire station is moved to the west side of the city, insurance rates will skyrocket because the west side of the city has higher arson and vandalism rates.', 'If the fire station is moved to the west side of the city, residents there will have to contend with increased noise and traffic.', 'There is already an ample water supply to support the fire station on the west side of the city.']