P1: In each last five years, the city has cut school funding and each time school officials complained that the cuts would force them to reduce expenditures for essential services.
P2: But each time, only expenditures for nonessential services were actually reduced.
C: So this time also when we reduce the funding, there will be cut in non essential things only
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the mayor’s conclusion?
(A) The city’s schools have always provided essential services as efficiently as they have provided nonessential services.
(It can't help even if they provided, it's not supporting the conclusion)
(B) Sufficient funds are currently available to allow the city’s schools to provide some nonessential services.
if still suffiicent funds available for the non essential funds then definitely there will be cut in non essential services if furthur cut happens
(C) Price estimates quoted to the city’s schools for the provision of nonessential services have not increased substantially since the most recent school funding cut.
Price Quoted, has not increased after the cut, then there will be the cut in funding, so expendires are same and revenue is less, doesn't strengthen the conclusion irrelevant to the conclusion
(D) Few influential city administrators support the funding of costly nonessential services in the city’s schools.
not relevent
(E) The city’s school officials rarely exaggerate the potential impact of threatened funding cuts.
may be cuts never happened in past, so not explaining anything about conclusion