In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipment in order to save money. However, many workers who lose their jobs to automation will need government assistance to survive, and the same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments.

Author's Argument: Automation may not result in reduced expenses in the corporations; on the contrary, laying-off workers may adversely affect them because they will have to pay more in taxes and for unemployment insurance claims.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the author's argument?

A. Many workers who have already lost their jobs to automation have been unable to find new jobs.
As author warned, the corporations are indeed bearing the monetary responsibilities for cutting jobs as the people they laid-off are jobless for extended period. Correct.

B. Many corporations that have failed to automate have seen their profits decline.
Weakens. Opposing author's calculated skepticism with automation, corporations that employed it actually saved their own skin.

C. Taxes and unemployment insurance are paid also by corporations that are not automating.
Corporations Counter-argument: So what Mr. Author, what are we to lose. Automation or no automation, we're anyway to bear the burden of both the things you just mentioned. We'll go ahead with our plan anyway; thanks for the heads-up though.

D. Most of the new jobs created by automation pay less than the jobs eliminated by automation did.
Automation were employed for some reasons and this is one among those. Automation did bring down the expenses that the corporations had been paying off as salaries. Weakens.

E. The initial investment in machinery for automation is often greater than the short-term savings in labor costs.
Corporations may be seeking long-term benefits. This is out of scope.

Answer: A