Which of the following, if true, could seriously weaken the premises of the given argument?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Serious concern has been expressed by analysts over the declining budget outlays for US defense, especially in view of the continuing threat perception to its security.

During the present President’s tenure, the budget has showed an increase of 5% each year in contrast with the previous regime, during which the annual rate of budget increase was 9%. Evidently, the slim budgets have played havoc with American plans of re-emerging as a major global military power. With a drop in defense spending, a lot of projects still remain pending.

 

(1): Correct. The principal logic of the author is since the stated amount of increase is lesser this time, the present regime is not spending enough. But in the process, inflation rate, another significant consideration, which will decide the effective increase, which has been given a go-bye. Herein lies the crux of the problem. (2): Incorrect. The salaries of defense personnel remaining the same, contributes only partially to negate the idea. Salaries might form only a small component of defense spending. (3): Incorrect. 'Some increase' (5%) only supports the argument. (4): Incorrect. (D) only serves to support the logic given in the question, while in fact, we are supposed to negate it. (5): Incorrect. (5), at the most, is big political rhetoric, which is pretty general and does not make any specific reference to the question in hand.