B) Free ad-sponsored news websites and blogs offer more content than E-News.

To weaken the argument we need to offer an alternative reason on WHY the ads are NOT eliminated.

The contents offered is not the point.

When you weaken an argument is like two sides of a coin. But the SAME type of coin.

Regards

I don't understand completely why the answer is C. I think despite the fact that E.news will have partners with other newspapers with ads it is not necessary that e-news will have ads.

that is right the only answer is B
because as I can get my free news from other places why should I subscribe to e-news

why cant Option A be the answer?

A) Individuals who currently read only print newspapers are much less likely to enjoy a subscription news website without first learning about reading online news through a free news website. - Irrelevant, this does not refer to "wasted time".

B) Free ad-sponsored news websites and blogs offer more content than E-News. - This refers to volume of content rather than wasted time.

C) E-News partners with other e-content providers, many of which always show numerous ads alongside their content. - Correct one, since ads are there, the users' visual attention could be drawn towards them and their time could be wasted.

D) For regions of the country that lack adequate internet coverage, switching to an online subscription website is not logical. - Again irrelevant, does not weaken the argument as it does not even refer to "wasted time"

E) E-News recently announced it would sell some of its content to ad-supported websites and print newspapers. - Wide off the mark, this does not affect the user's time or the way he/she can be immune/prone to the advertisements and wastage of time.

Answer - C