In Estonia, people in urban areas have gained increasingly improved access to the internet, while internet subscription costs have been subsidized to help residents of rural areas gain access. However, even with the subsidy, many of the most isolated rural populations still have no access to the internet. Yet, the internet subsidy has not failed to achieve its intended purpose because _________ .
Which of the following best completes the reasoning above?
A – the subsidy could have helped many of the rural residents in the nation gain access to the internet even if many other rural residents in the nation were not helped in this way.
B – if the subsidy has any benefit for those whom it was not intended to benefit, then that subsidy has failed to achieve its intended purpose.
C – the intended purpose of the subsidy was to benefit not only rural populations in the nation who have no internet, but other people in the nation as well.
D – even many of the people in the nation who live in urban areas would have difficulty gaining access to the internet without the subsidy
E – the subsidy’s intended purpose could not have been achieved if the subsidy had not existed.
OA : A
Explanation : This argument contends that while the subsidy did not help certain rural communities at all, it still did have an impact. This suggests that even if some parts of the population did not benefit it could have benefited other parts of the population. This is echoed in (A).
A – this clearly shows that even though some segments were ignored, the subsidy did benefit others.
B – ‘those whom it was not intended’ is out of scope and irrelevant.
C – This echoes the evidence of the argument and provides no useful (additional) information.
D – This does not help address the communities that did not benefit at all, thereby being irrelevant. E – This does not prove or disprove anything since even if this statement were true, it could still be true that the subsidy is useless.