- Ait offers eleven as a small number without saying what the number would have been had the canal not been de-weeded, or what it has been in earlier Julys, so that the figure by itself speaks neither well nor ill of the work
- Bit does not state what the de-weeding cost the administration
- Cit assumes that the eleven outlets ran short because of weed and not because of a breach in the canal
- Dit does not name the contractor by whom the de-weeding was carried out
Step-by-Step Solution
Eleven out of ninety is small or large only against something, and the report supplies nothing to set it against. If forty outlets ran short in each of the past five Julys the work has been a triumph; if three ran short the work has made matters worse; and the report reads the same either way, which is the mark of a figure doing no work. What the de-weeding cost bears on whether the success, once established, was worth its price. The third option attacks a claim the report does not make, since the report explains no outlet's shortage but only counts them. And the contractor's name bears on accountability rather than on what eleven means.
Answer: A) it offers eleven as a small number without saying what the number would have been had the canal not been de-weeded, or what it has been in earlier Julys, so that the figure by itself speaks neither well nor ill of the work