Article: For much of the eighteenth century, France approached its wars in the same way. It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help (sending them limited numbers of troops or inexperienced soldiers), anticipating that fights for the colonies would most likely be lost anyway. This strategy was to a degree forced upon France: geography, coupled with the superiority of the British navy, made it difficult for the French navy to provide significant supplies and support to French colonies. Similarly, several long land borders made an effective domestic army imperative for any French ruler. Given these military necessities, the French government, unsurprisingly, based its strategy overwhelmingly on the army in Europe: it would keep most of its army on the continent, hoping for victories closer to home. The plan was to fight to the end of hostilities and then, in treaty negotiations, to trade territorial acquisitions in Europe to regain lost overseas possessions. This approach did not serve France well in the war, as the colonies were indeed lost, but although much of the European war went well, by its end France had few counterbalancing European successes.

Now answer this question: How much effort did France put into wars to defend its colonies?
It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help
The context explicitly states that France approached its wars in the same way: It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help. This means that it did not put much effort into defending its colonies and instead, concentrated more on fighting to regain lost overseas possessions during treaty negotiations. 
Thus, "It would let colonies defend themselves or would offer only minimal help" is an appropriate answer to this question - given the context of the text provided above..