Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to stimulate econo

Same passage different question - https://gmatclub.com/forum/party-spokes ... l#p2509372 - so let's dive in what that same understanding of the passage. We return to a situation that says that there is no point saying that we will spend 600 mn more in the economy. Since it will either be spent by the public or the public workers. If one gets it the other doesn't and pays the price either in taxes or by being fired.


Party spokesperson: The opposition party’s proposal to stimulate economic activity in the province by refunding $600 million in provincial taxes to taxpayers, who could be expected to spend the money, envisions an illusory benefit. Since the province’s budget is required to be in balance, either new taxes would be needed to make up the shortfall, in which case the purpose of the refund would be defeated, or else workers for the province would be dismissed. So either the province’s taxpayers or its workers, who are also residents of the province, will have the $600 million to spend, but there can be no resulting net increase in spending to stimulate the province’s economy.

The conclusion about whether there would be a resulting net increase in spending would not follow if the


(A) taxpayers of the province would spend outside the province at least $300 million of any $600 million refunded to them
Nope. This would mean a net decrease in internal economy spending. Also it doesn't change the core point about the 600 million spending being EXTRA.

(B) taxpayers of the province would receive any refund in partial payments during the year rather than in a lump sum
Irrelevant.

(C) province could assess new taxes in a way that would avoid angering taxpayers
Irrelevant.

(D) province could instead of refunding the money, stimulate its economy by redirecting its spending to use the $600 million for construction projects creating jobs around the province
We are trying to see if the equation about the 600 million changes. Does TOTAL spending change because of this statement? Nope.

(E) province could keep its workers and use them more effectively with a resulting savings of $600 million in its out-of-province expenditures
This says that we will effectively save 600 million more. This changes the entire equation. Think of it like a penny saved is a penny earned. There are no job losses here and we still get 600 million saved due to their efficiency.