Passage Summary: One person argues against drilling due to high risk and low reward. The other person counters by saying that if we rejected things for having small rewards, we would have to reject individual farms too.

Conclusion: The proponent's analogy suggests that the small contribution of new oil wells is not a valid reason to oppose them.

Reasoning: The proponent assumes that oil drilling and farming are logically comparable because both involve individual units making small contributions to a national need.

Analysis: To weaken the proponent's reply, we need to find a 'disanalogy' between drilling and farming. The opponent's original argument wasn't just about the small gain; it was about the small gain relative to the 'risk of environmental disaster.' If farming doesn't carry a catastrophic risk of a similar magnitude, then the proponent's comparison is a false equivalence. Look for an answer choice that highlights a significant difference in the risks or costs associated with these two activities. If the stakes for drilling are much higher than for farming, the proponent's 'ridiculous' comparison loses its bite.