Question

Amid the present wave of job redundancies for skilled but unemployed youth, the publication of an encouraging report on the viability of garage startup enterprises has led the Federal government to set up an investment fund, under its Federal light-industry program, to provide capital for such enterprises. This plan has drawn opposition from various quarters; the critics claim that similar funds, also set up under the Federal light-industry program, that aim to stimulate small enterprises frequently end up harming other American social groups unconnected to these enterprises.
Which of the following best provides support for the claim made by the critics above?

• A. Garage enterprises in Washington State now produce almost 12% of the vehicle components previously imported from South East Asia.
• B. The funding of the Federal light-industry program depends on the reallocation of resources earmarked for disadvantaged groups.
• C. The debate concerning the Federal light-industry program created a backlog in the Federal legislative schedule.
• D. The union for Federal light-Industry workers was the prime source of the claim.
• E. Programs like Federal light-industry programs have yielded great results in past.

Hint:

In 'Strengthen' questions, look for an answer choice that provides a reason, an example, or a mechanism that makes the conclusion of the argument more likely to be true. The correct answer often fills a logical gap in the argument.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a "Strengthen the Argument" question. We need to find an answer choice that provides evidence to support the critics' claim.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The critics' claim is that government funds for small enterprises (like garage startups) often "end up harming other American social groups unconnected to these enterprises."
We are looking for an option that shows how this harm might occur.
Let's analyze the options:
(A) This shows a positive outcome of the garage enterprises (reducing imports). This weakens the critics' claim, it does not support it.
(B) This states that the money for the new program is taken from funds originally intended for "disadvantaged groups." This is a perfect example of the harm the critics are talking about. Helping one group (skilled youth) comes at the direct expense of another social group (disadvantaged groups). This directly supports the claim.
(C) A legislative backlog is a procedural issue, not a direct harm to a specific "social group" in the way the claim implies.
(D) This option identifies the source of the claim but provides no evidence to support the claim itself. Knowing who made the claim doesn't make the claim stronger.
(E) This states that similar programs have been successful. This is direct evidence *against* the critics' claim, so it weakens the argument.

Step 3: Final Answer:
Option (B) provides a clear mechanism by which funding the new program for unemployed youth causes harm to another social group, thereby strengthening the critics' argument.