Last year SSc got only 3% of the Govt's budget for research.
Sharp reductions have been imposed on SSc programs this year.
Conclusion: They seem to be dictated by social philosophy, not financial constraints.
The argument is saying that only 3% money was allocated to SSc last year and this year there has been a sharp reduction. It seems that SSc is not considered important and that is why the reduction (not because money is less)
The argument relies on assuming that 3% allocation shows that SSc is not considered important.
Option (E) tells us that.
(A) The government funds allocated for research in the social and behavioral sciences are not sufficient for the work that needs to be done.
The argument does not deal with whether the amount of money is sufficient or not.
(B) The social and behavioral sciences are as valuable as the physical and biological sciences.
Again, the argument does not deal with whether SSc are as valuable as other sciences. It just talks about the value of SSc.
(C) The current reductions will stop research in the social and behavioral sciences.
The argument doesn't assume that the reduction will stop research. It just deals with the motive behind reduction this year by the Govt.
(D) Government funding is the primary source of research money in the United States.
Again, not relevant. Whether Govt funding is the primary source or there are other sources, the argument doesn't discuss. It just deals with the motive behind reduction this year by the Govt.
Answer (E)
_________________