Governor could not fulfill the promise of reducing state deficits but people are still in his favor. why?
He must have done 'something good' that keeps his voters with him.
So we are looking for an option that will give us such scenario to strengthen the conclusion that people
are still in favor of governor despite him not fulfilling the promise.
A. the governor said that he would reduce the state deficit by at least half during his first term in office.
--His first term seems to be over with running state deficits. So this option weakens.
B. the poll was given to independent voters as well as people registered with political parties.
--People with political parties (?) which parties? do they support governor or opposed? how many people? Not that promising choice.D. the state deficit is much lower than the deficit of the three states that adjoin Governor Huang's state.
--Does it matter?
people of Governor Huang's state are concerned with their own state deficits.Out
by POE (C) VS (E)
C. most respondents, encouraged by lower unemployment rates, were not aware of the exact level of the state deficit.
E. the level of crime in the state has decreased substantially during Governor Huang's term, as he had promised it would during his campaign.
Both give us the reasons about 'something good' governor has done for state.
C shows this direct influence on people as they were happy with employment, they were not aware about deficits.
whereas E tells about decrease in crime as per promise, It does not tell us about its effect on people.
As C tells about effect on people which putting votes again in governor's bucket.
hence a stronger choice. IMO, c is winner.