The mayor's advisers are attempting to alter the widespread public belief that the mayor's restructuring of the city's taxation system is to blame for the poor business climate in the city. They say that the poor business climate is part of a national phenomenon and that the mayor is only blamed because of a coincidence in time: the business climate happened to get worse shortly following the tax restructuring.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the adviser's claim about the reason that the tax restructuring is blamed for the poor business climate?
There was a noticeable deterioration of the city's public transportation system immediately following the tax restructuring but the public drew no connection between the two events.
When the mayor was elected, by a sizeable majority, he had clearly enunciated his intention to restructure the city's taxation system.
Most economists agree that the effects of the tax restructuring on the city's business environment would not be immediately obvious, but would take at least a year to make themselves felt.
Despite the nationwide poor business environment, similar tax restructuring is being planned in cities of similar size throughout the country.
While the public generally objects to anything perceived to be likely to increase their taxes, they are just as quick to object to any reduction in the services supported by tax revenues.

Can someone explain to why (A) is correct? I don't see what the transport system has to do with the tax restructuring at all. Thanks.

[Show/hide explanation]

The mayor's advisers claim that the tax restructuring is blamed for the poor business climate because of a temporal association in the minds of the public. (A) casts doubt on this explanation by demonstrating a parallel situation in which the public "drew no connection" between the tax restructuring and a coincident negative city-wide phenomenon, deteriorating transportation.

(B) focuses on the mayor rather than the public; whether or not the mayor established his intentions before he took office does not address why the public blames him for the economic downturn. (C) would actually strengthen the advisers' argument by citing authoritative opinion that no immediate connection could be seen between the tax restructuring and the economic situation of the city. (D) and (E) fall outside the scope of the advisers' claim: (D) by addressing "cities of similar size" instead of the city in question, and (E) by describing public reaction to reductions in services, not a poor economic climate.