Critical Reasoning

According to the Department of Social Services, new taxes need to be generated to maintain the solvency of the state's Medical Aid program, which provides medical coverage for the state's poor and uninsured residents. The governor has proposed that a special tax be imposed on those with incomes greater than $300,000 a year to pay for the shortfalls in the Medical Aid program. While new revenues are indeed needed to maintain the Medical Aid program's solvency, the governor's plan for securing the needed funds should be rejected because it would force certain taxpayers to absorb the cost for something from which they would receive no benefit.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the feasibility of the governor's plan to maintain the solvency of the state's Medical Aid program?

A. Before any such tax increase can be imposed, the state is required by law to hold hearings at which objections to the proposed tax hike can be raised.

B. Imposing a special tax will fail to address the underlying causes for the increasing costs to maintain the state's Medical Aid program or the increasing number of uninsured residents in the state.

C. In recent years, changes to the Medical Aid funding formula have shifted much of the burden for maintaining the program from the federal government to state governments.

D. Those with incomes greater than $300,000 a year represent a powerful political constituency in the state and previous attempts to impose tax increases on this group have been blocked by the state legislature.

E. Other states that have tried to impose similar targeted tax increases to maintain the solvency of their Medical Aid programs have met with mixed success.

Here is my analysis regarding the question

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the feasibility of the governor's plan to maintain the solvency of the state's Medical Aid program?

In order to weaken the feasibility of Governors plan

A. Before any such tax increase can be imposed, the state is required by law to hold hearings at which objections to the proposed tax hike can be raised.
What they need to do before imposing the tax increase does not affect the conclusion at all.

B. Imposing a special tax will fail to address the underlying causes for the increasing costs to maintain the state's Medical Aid program or the increasing number of uninsured residents in the state.
(If imposing tax will not address the underlying causes and the costs increase then the plan caanot be successful even if extra revenue is generated i.e., it cant help to aid Medical Aid program. Although not convincing keep it a side.)

C. In recent years, changes to the Medical Aid funding formula have shifted much of the burden for maintaining the program from the federal government to state governments.
(Out of scope. This does not affect the argument in any way.)

D. Those with incomes greater than $300,000 a year represent a powerful political constituency in the state and previous attempts to impose tax increases on this group have been blocked by the state legislature.
(Just because it happened previously need not ensure that it does not happen now. Keep it aside.)

E. Other states that have tried to impose similar targeted tax increases to maintain the solvency of their Medical Aid programs have met with mixed success.
Other states met with mixed success ie., some positive some negative. This neither strengthens nor weakens.

So left with B and D.
I chose B because of the reason mentioned with D.
Need expert help to know why D is right.