complete the passage

I think its E

if elderly are supplemented by their children for a standard living, the %20 increase will serve to decrease the ammount children spend on their elderly, not the amount elderly can spend.

IMO E , if anything is there that could possibly come close...was D.

The reasoning is simple... the supplements from the children came down after the pensions increased.

IMO E

After the 20% increase,elderly have reached the level of comfortable living or close to it,children must have stopped or reduced the supplement.

Think the answer is B...

"E" doesnt make sense because if children supplemented the income , they should have been better off (even if the child contributed a meagre amount)

"D" doesnt make sense because it has no relation to the argument . So what if the number of elderly Runagians (dont even know if these elderly are above 65) reached a max. The government decided to increase by 20% the amount that they paid to each of the "above 65" elderly person .

Option B is incorrect.

Its states bank takes 3 week to process the cheques.Even it delay,elderly are getting money after some time.This ll make them to live comfortable.

However the argument says still elderly are not better after the increase.Option B weakens this argument.

Option E is correct.

Children provides extra money,which makes elderly to live comfortable living.After the increase children stopped or reduce the money which make the elderly to live same life.

Before increase
Pension=500
Children=400

After increase
Pension=800
Children=100[or no money]

Since the children supplement is considerable factor in elderly comfortable living,it logically completes the argument.

IMO D.
For people who were living below poverty line, 20% increase will only have added miniscule relief.

I was thinking deeply about E too. Because the meaning of "comfortable living" is so dicy and relative, I eliminated it ultimately.

I will go with E... finally