Two years ago, the government of Runagia increased by 20 percent the government-provided pensions paid to Runagians over 65. The aim of the increase was to stimulate the economy in the rural regions of the country, where most pension recipients live. Statistics, however, show that there has been no increase in economic activity in those regions since then, but that there has been noticeably more spending in the urban areas.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the increase resulted in the unintended state of affairs described?
A. Until the pensions were increased, many Runagians over 65 in rural regions had been receiving support from their children who live in urban areas.
From the premise, we know that old ppl get more pensions than before. Now we know, by choice A, these old ppl got their money from their kids in urban areas --> the kids have to, say, give parts of their salary to their parents. But since these old ppl got pensions from the government, the kids can now save that part of their salary and spend in on themseleves --> more spending in rural areas.D. The Runagian postal system is so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks for pension checks to reach recipients in rural areas.
Even if rural areas receive checks later, the premises are based on the fact that, pension in both urban and rural areas are delivered. Therefore, it doesn't explain the increase in spending in urban areas.
In addition, even if you didn't get the logic in A when you were solving this problem, you can still get A by POE since B,C,D,E were all essentially talking about the similarities between or same things happen in urban areas and rural areas. And please remember similarities/same thing doesn't explain differences.