According to the Department of Social Services, new taxes need to be

I was a little confused between B and D, but the reason that I eliminated D is: - just because the previous attempts have been blocked by the legislature doesn't mean that it will happen this time in this particular case

As I eliminated D, I chose the option B though I wasn't convinced about B. Simply, I was completely convinced that D was wrong for the above reason, hence I chose the option B.

I request for some help on my thinking process and for some comments on my reasoning for option D.

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 provide proponents of the governor's plan with the strongest counter to the objection that the plan is unfair?

A. Even with the proposed tax increase, the average tax rate on those state residents earning more than $300,000 a year would remain lower than the tax rate on those earning this same income in neighboring states. -We are not worried about the taxes in neighbouring states
B. Any attempt to raise taxes on those with incomes greater than $300,000 a year will cause the affluent to find creative ways to shelter their incomes and lower their taxes and thus will prove self-defeating. -If the people find different ways to shelter their income then the new tax won't have any benefits
C. Those earning more than $300,000 a year benefit when the state directs funding to research into curing diseases such as arthritis, cancer, and heart disease, and the funding for this research is drawn from general income tax revenues to which the all taxpayers contribute. -We are not talking about the research but about the poor and needy
D. When the poor and uninsured go without adequate medical coverage, they avoid medical treatment until their conditions become severe, forcing hospitals to raise rates for everyone so that they can treat this population. -Correct. If a certain category of people don't pat surcharge then the increased prices will impact every section of the economy.
E. The only alternative way of funding the Medical Aid program now being considered is through a general state income tax surcharge, which would affect affluent and middle class taxpayers alike. -We are not interested in the alternative ways

Bad question dummies from Kaplan. How is political clout linked to the "feasibility of the plan"? Political clout can block the proposal. Feasibility means - something wrong in the Governor's logic & money got from increased taxes won't solve the underlying problem.

These guys misguide students with these kinds of questions.

I challenge anyone to support the logic of this qn...

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.
This doesn't add to the fact that the law cannot be enacted therefore out

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.
This lends strength to the argument that the law has to be passaed therefore out

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.
Tis doesn't add on to the fact that the law cannot be implemented therefore out

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.
This definitely weakens since the law cannot be enacted as the 300k above guys have a stronger hold therefore out

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.
What others commit to is absolutely inconsequential therefore out

Therefore IMO D

I think the problem doesn't use the word "feasibility" correctly. Have you heard of "feasibility studies?" / "ROI" studies? You don't use that word to convey the meaning intended by the prompt.

does not option B] tells us that the plan will not work or the funds will be insufficient and hence weakening the plan?

Answer these questions, in as much detail as you can:

1). What, specifically, does the answer to the question need to do? What would it MEAN for an answer to 'do' this?

2). What does answer choice B say/mean, in your own words?

3). Does answer choice B achieve what is needed in the right answer to this question? Why or why not?

You're right. The past does not represent the future. There's no certainty that the tax increase will be blocked by the group again. However, the question does not ask us to prove the plan unfeasible but asks us to cast the most doubt on it. That means we need to find a statement that leads us to think that the plan may not be possible. Casting doubt does not necessarily mean disproving the argument.

i strongly supported option D, but the question stem is wrong. read it again. it clearly says "which of the following would CAST A DOUBT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF THE GOVERNORS PLAN?"
Option D does weaken it, not by casting a doubt on the feasibility of the plan but by telling us that the plan won't pass altogether. Hence I eliminated option D