Critical Reasoning

Truck driver: The gasoline tax is too high and
it must be lowered. It has been
raised every year for the last
five years, while other sales
taxes have not. If the
government persists in unfairly
penalizing truck drivers, our
increased operating costs will
either hurt consumers or put us
out of business.
State official: But your gasoline tax dollars
maintain and improve the very
roads you depend on. Without
those additional revenues, road
conditions would deteriorate,
costing you and consumers
much more in maintenance and
repairs.
If the statements made above are true, the best
characterization of the logical relationship
between the two arguments is that the state
official's response
(A) points out that the truck driver's proposal
will actually worsen the problem it is
intended to solve
(B) is circular, assuming the truth of its
conclusion in order to justify its conclusion
(C) points out that the truck driver is selfish
because more people are aided by the
gasoline tax than are penalized
(D) is merely an attempt to excuse the
government's policies without providing
any justification for those policies
(E) points to an inherent contradiction
between the cause the truck driver cites
and the effects the truck driver thinks will
follow from the cause


OA : "AFTER DISCUSSION "[spoiler][/spoiler]