The conclusion of the argument is that the prediction of decreased consumer spending has not come to pass. The evidence for this is that there has been no corresponding increase in the amount of money set aside in savings accounts by the general public.

This question asks us to choose a question whose answer will provide information relevant to evaluating the significance of the fact that the amount of money placed in savings accounts has not increased. The author mentions this savings pattern to support the claim that people have not been curtailing their discretionary spending. So we need to find a question whose answer will relate to savings and spending patterns.

(A) Information about which business sectors were most affected by the layoffs will not help us establish the relevance of the savings pattern to the claim.

(B) The savings used by those who are laid off has no bearing on the savings patterns of those who are not laid off, which is the group this argument addresses ("even if their jobs were secure").

(C) CORRECT. This question asks about the prices of necessities such as food and utilities. If people have not been saving their money, perhaps they have been spending it on necessities (as opposed to spending it on discretionary items). If these items have become more expensive, then perhaps people have not been able to save money despite curtailing their discretionary spending.

(D) The percentage of people with savings accounts is not related to the question of whether people have curtailed their discretionary spending or increased the amount they save.

(E) Knowing the statistics for average salaries during the period since the layoffs will not help us evaluate the significance of the spending and savings patterns during that time. It might help to be able to compare the statistics for the periods before and after the layoffs, but knowing just one of those statistics tells us nothing about the trends.