If the city council institutes new parking regulations, city revenues will surely increase, since studies have conclusively shown that, if such parking regulations are put into effect, there is an increase in parking violations, and an increase in parking violations will result in a greater number of parking fines collected.

21. Which one of the following is closest, in terms of its logical features, to the reasoning used in the argument above?

(A) Last year┬б┬пs increase in revenues can be easily explained. That was the year the city council instituted new parking regulations. No doubt the new law brought with it an increase in the number of parking violations.

(B) If taxes were increased, this act would naturally result in increased revenues for the city, and increased revenues would make some desirable social programs possible. So, if taxes were increased, some desirable social programs would become possible.

(C) Henry says that, if the city council goes into closed session, an important matter of personnel policy is being discussed. However, no personnel matters were discussed at the council meeting, so if Henry is right, the council did not go into closed session.

(D) All cars parked on the north side of the street were ticketed last night, and the same cars were towed away this morning. So beware A car ticketed in this city also gets towed away.

(E) Allen says that, if the city council institutes new parking regulations, it is unlikely that revenues for the city will increase. If Allen is right, then the parking regulation plan should not be instituted.

My dough is on B

Even I vote for B.

Stimulus can be written as

If City council institutes new parking regulation -----> result in increased revenue. And an evidence is given to support this.

Only in B we have the similar structure
If taxes were increased ------> result in increased revenues

By process of elimination I got B.