I think the answer should be option A. My analysis of the problem is as follows:
Conclusion : The policy is not likely to be passed because municipality can't absorb the extra amount.
Basis for the conclusion :
1) As population increases , the strain on municipality also increases.
2) The aforementioned situation calls for maintaining a buffer of trained people for tackling the additional strain.
Question Stem : We need to strengthen the argument
Pre - thinking step : If I can prove that extra money is not available to the municipality then my argument will be strengthened.
(A) Tax revenue generated from new residents is typically collected in the subsequent year. ---> Points towards lack of funds for the current year , and this option is on the lines of our pre - thought process.
(B) Tax incentives are one of the most common means communities use to lure corporations to open offices. ---> Fails to address the issue at hand
(C) Several small municipalities have accommodated significant population expansions without an interruption of vital services. ---> Goes against our argument !
(D) New residents are more likely to vote on local ballot measures involving the quality of vital services. ---> Irrelevant
(E) When financially strained, municipalities will typically cut non-vital services before cutting vital services. ---> We are concerned about Vital , not non-vital. Incorrect.
Experts, please comment if my thought process is correct or not !
_________________
" The few , the fearless "