Critical Reasoning

In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales, the incidence of smoking-related health problems has risen steadily for the last twenty years. The health secretary recently proposed a series of laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use in Gandania. Profits from tobacco sales, however, account for ten percent of Gandania's annual revenues. Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) All health care in Gandania is government-funded.

(B) Implementing the proposed laws is not likely to cause a significant increase in the amount of tobacco Gandania exports.

(C) The percentage of revenue Gandania receives from tobacco sales has remained steady in recent years.

(D) Profits from tobacco sales far surpass any other single source of revenue for the Gandanian government.

(E) No government official in Gandania has ever previously proposed laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use.

What is wrong with the other options? Can experts explain? Thanks

OA A