We still know that auto maintenance “almost always pays off in the long run.” The author already acknowledges that it might not pay off in every case. Pointing out something the author already acknowledges doesn’t weaken.

This shows that the cities the author cites to might not be relevantly similar. Cities with a smaller population and economy might get more value from economic development than a city like the council’s. This weakens the support provided by the author’s comparison.

The reason that some motorists fail to perform preventive maintenance doesn’t change the fact that auto maintenance “almost always pays off in the long run.” The argument concerns the value of maintenance, not the motivations behind failure to maintain.

This doesn’t suggest the adviser is unqualified. We have no reason to think the adviser was among those who demand more than many councils are willing to spend or that this city council wasn’t willing to spend to hire someone qualified. (D) also ignores the argument’s reasoning.

The author believes the investment in the adviser will pay off in the long run. That acknowledges that there might not be a payoff in the first few years. So, lack of payoff in the first few years is consistent with the author’s position.