Critical Reasoning

This question has been posted before on the forum but I did not find a convincing answer, so posting it again:

While Governor Verdant has been in office, the state's budget has increased by an average of 6 percent each year. While the previous governor was in office, the state's budget increased by an average of 11.5 percent each year. Obviously, the austere budgets during Governor Verdant's term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

(A) The rate of inflation in the state averaged 10 percent each year during the previous governor's term in office and 3 percent each year during Verdant's term.
(B) Both federal and state income tax rates have been lowered considerably during Verdant's term in office.
(C) In each year of Verdant's term in office, the state's budget has shown some increase in spending over the previous year.
(D) During Verdant's term in office, the state has either discontinued or begun to charge private citizens for numerous services that the state offered free to citizens during the previous governor's term.
(E) During the previous governor's term in office, the state introduced several so-called "austerity" budgets intended to reduce the growth in state spending

OA as per the source is A, but it doesn't seem to be making sense to me.

The conclusion is : "the austere budgets during Governor Verdant's term have caused the slowdown in the growth in state spending"

So to weaken the conclusion we need to prove that it is not the "austere budgets" but something else which is causing the slowdown in the growth in state spending. By that logic the answer doesn't make sense to me.

Newcomer working on CR, not sure how helpful my insight is, but here's a try at it.

It came down to A & B for me.

The reason A looked like a viable option to me is because a rise in inflation is a rise in the amount of money needed to purchase the same amount of goods or services over time. As a rough example, everyone talks about how a hamburger in the 50s used to cost a nickel or dime, or whatever, and nowadays is $1. If the growth in inflation has decelerated during Verdant's term, the state needs a similarly decelerated growth in budget to pay for the same budget objectives.

B looks tempting because my gut says a reduction in income tax rates, or several reductions over time, should force a budget reduction. But perhaps the reality is that the state is not spending every dollar it receives, so reducing the total dollars available via reduced taxes can only truly account for a slowdown in state "receiving", not necessarily a slowdown in state spending.

IMO A

by POE

B : same condition with both governments, so no effect.
C : some increase is fine , but we have to show that the rate has not slowed sown.
D : opposite answer
E : out of scope

If you read A again then it is saying that

With old government : inflation 10%, growth 11.5% so effective -> 1.5%
Now : inflation 3%, growth 6%, so effective 3%

It shows that the rate has not reduced.

Hope it will help.

paes wrote:IMO A

by POE

B : same condition with both governments, so no effect.
C : some increase is fine , but we have to show that the rate has not slowed sown.
D : opposite answer
E : out of scope

If you read A again then it is saying that

With old government : inflation 10%, growth 11.5% so effective -> 1.5%
Now : inflation 3%, growth 6%, so effective 3%

It shows that the rate has not reduced.

Hope it will help.

Great explanation!

As the OP notes, when we want to weaken a causal argument we usually look for an alternative cause. However, we also need to be on the lookout for other ways to weaken. One way to weaken any argument is to show that an author is misinterpreting the evidence.

Here, in addition to the causal assumptions, the author is assuming that the different growth rates actually indicate that there has been a slowdown in real spending (nowhere in the evidence does the author state that the government is providing less to its citizens); (A) disputes that assumption by showing that real growth has actually increased by more under Verdant that the previous governor.

Thanks Paes and Stewart !!

just applied the elimination

In the argument comparaison is done between terms of two governers .

in the answer options , the B D C E could be easily eliminated as they dont touch both the terms .they only deal with one or the other .

so A remains .