This fits neatly into the logic of the argument. Sure we’re still building a few masts and hulls out of wood, but the advent of steel (or aluminum, or whatever ships are made of now) has dramatically decreased demand for wood. Demand has decreased so much, in fact, that our use of wood is sustainable.

This fits neatly into the logic of the argument. We used to need a lot of mules to plow fields and drive mills and whatnot, but the advent of… I guess the steam engine?... made demand for mules decrease.

(C) would still be wrong without this, but “at first” really knocks it clean out of contention. Maybe developing new tech comes at a super high initial cost, but (C) leaves a clear window for those costs to be followed by immediate and fantastic profits.

This fits neatly into the logic of the argument. As a natural resource becomes more scarce, it costs more to use, which incentivizes the development of alternative tech. Those factors work hand in hand to reduce demand for the resource, ensuring we’ll always have enough to meet that demand.

It is very rare for the correct answer in a weaken question to contravene a premise. So rare, in fact, that we often just declare it’s forbidden. It does happen sometimes, though. I mean like ~10 times total across every LSAT question ever released.

(E) undermines the argument’s conclusion by asserting that the narrative it spins – where alternative tech always allows us to dodge resource scarcity by reducing demand for that resource to sustainable levels – doesn’t actually apply to all resources.

To be clear: as it’s worded, the stimulus absolutely does assert that this rule applies to all resources. (E) operates by saying “Yeah but surely that’s not true for things like clean air and clean water. Tech can’t help at all with those.”