Critical reasoning

[BTGmoderatorRO]

The current administration and Congress have once again practiced bad public policy in failing to increase Pell grants or at least limit their reduction for next year's budget. Pell grants improve access to higher education for those who have historically been disadvantaged in our society by financial or other life circumstances, thereby helping recipients elevate themselves to the middle class. Without that access, the gap between the rich and poor in this country will continue to widen, increasingly straining the stability of our democracy.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion of this argument?

A) Total spending on programs targeted at improving access to higher education for disadvantaged students will increase in next year's federal budget.
B) The neediest candidates for Pell grants often lack information about their eligibility for such grants.
C) Congress recently authorized a bill that will increase after-school programs in urban communities.
D) On average, an individual Pell grant funds less than 15% of the full cost of attending a four-year college or university.
E) Federal spending on education for next year will increase as a percentage of the total budget.
QA is a

why do you agree with C as the correct answer. Good one..lets discuss it together

[Vincen]

I don't know why option A is the correct.

Can any expert help me here. I would like your explanation. Thanks.

[prada]

Pell grants is ONE of many programs that can help the "underprivileged". So as A says, if TOTAL spending to help them goes up, just because Pell grants goes down doesn't mean the gap between rich and poor increases.