The government is considering legislation that would reduce tax benefi

The argument talks about the new legislation which will reduce tax benefits for parents.
If these benefits are not passed, many students will not be able to go to colleges.
We have been asked to find what assumption is necessary for the argument to be correct.

Option C, if true will break the conclusion because if the children could open accounts
the children could attend school even without the contribution of their parents

VeritasKarishma nightblade354 could you please explain this question, how A is incorrect and C is correct?

Why not B as it can be easily assumed that parents are mis using those fund hence government came out with this step

Posted from my mobile device

VeritasKarishma ,
GMATNinja,
generis
GMATGuruNY
egmat
Can you please explain this question?

Posted from my mobile device

To me, both (C) and (D) look correct. (C) has no meaning without (D). I am not sure what to think of this question.

Legislation would greatly reduce tax benefits for parents opening college savings funds for their children.

Conclusion: If the new laws pass, many college-bound individuals will have difficulty covering their college costs, and some would not be able to attend.

A. For most college-bound children, their parents’ savings accounts are the only source of educational funding.

'Most' is incorrect here. It may not be true for 'most children'. It may be true for 'many children'. Also, only source of educational funding is not correct either. Perhaps there is a scholarship that students get.

B. The legislation is being considered because many parents have been misusing savings funds dedicated to their children’s educational costs.

Why the legislation is being considered is irrelevant. We are more concerned about its impact on college students.

C. College-bound children cannot open savings funds separately from their parents.

This is an assumption. Else, students would simply open the savings funds separately from their parents and nobody would face problems.

D. Because of decreased tax benefits, some parents will not open college savings funds for their children.

The legislation would impose tax on parents who open college savings fund. To say that many college-bound individuals will have difficulty covering their college costs, and some would not be able to attend, we have to assume that some parents will not open college savings fund (and instead, college bound students themselves will open the savings funds if they are allowed)

E. Parents facing the new restrictions on college funds will find other investments to dedicate to their children’s educational costs.

We are assuming that parents facing the restrictions will not find other investments.

Can anyone help?
I have a doubt in Option C

Premise : " If passed, the new laws would result in greatly decreased tax benefits for parents who open such accounts"
means new policy will discourage the parents to open new account & existing account holders will face decreased tax benefits
so
conclusion :"many college-bound individuals will have difficulty covering their college costs, and some would not be able to attend"

So even "if College-bound children 'can' open savings funds separately from their parents" how it breaks the conclusion ?
Just opening a bank account will not solve the problem because some parents already have the account open..

Even I was stumped between C and D. I actually went with D, for one reason.

In C: Even if children are able to open savings accounts, won't they also face the same tax issues since those issues are linked with accounts and not with children

But D: Stating that parents will not open accounts, clear assumption linking premise (tax benefit issues) with the conclusion that children will either have difficulty or will not be able to go to college

GMATNinja, any thoughts please?

How to choose D over C?? Please share your valuable insight!
Thanks