PT24.S2.Q7 - A neighborhood group plans to protest

Alright, I'm not sure if I should be worried about this question too much as I hope (and have heard) that the newer tests are much more logically rigorous. Anyway, hear me out on this one...

This is a "Weaken Except Question" and we are given a fairly basic argument.
P1: Our neighborhood already has the most residents per [recreation] center of any neighborhood in the city.
P2: Access to recreational facilities is a necessity for this neighborhood

C: Closing this center is unacceptable

Assumptions I noticed: Does most residents per captia here mean that all of them actually use the facility? What if the neighborhood is comprised of people who don't use it?

AC:

B weakens the argument. If children, who are the main users of the center, are less populous in this neighborhood then we have more reason to close the center/have more reason to believe that it isn't a necessity.
C kind of weakens as we don't know what the subjective term "often" means.
D weakens because it does the same thing as B and C. These three AC are almost like a package because they all essentially argue the same thing - that the rec center is underutilized and that the conclusion (closing the center is unacceptable) is more likely to be falsified.

So we are down to A and E. This is where my trouble began. I looked at A and thought that it strengthens the argument. Well, it does and it doesn't. If the term "their locality" is taken to mean "their city limits" then yes, this strengthens the argument. However, if the term "their locality" is taken to mean "the residents homes" then this would weaken the argument as it implies that the residents wouldn't be able to leave their homes to go to the center, and thus essentially do the same thing as B, C, and D.

The real issue is with E though...

E states, "As people become more involved in computers and computer games, rec centers are becoming increasingly less important".

Ummm... If this was used in an actual argument in my philosophy class it would get laughed out. First, this AC assumes that the people in the stimulus are actually able to gain access to, and competently use computers. What if this is an Amish neighborhood? Well this AC doesn't work. What if this is a neighborhood in X nation without electricity? The location or time period of the neighborhood is never specified in the stimulus. Next, this AC equivocates "less important" with meaning "less frequently used". That's a terrible jump to make as well. Just because something becomes less important to me does not mean that I will use it less. For example, I've gotten more into the LSAT and as a result my lifting schedule has become less important. Does that mean that I lift less? No. It just means that I care less.

Let me know what you think #Help

Admin note: edited title

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-07/