OFFICIAL EXPLANATION


$\(\mathbf{A}\)$

When asked to cast doubt on a conclusion, as you are here, first locate the author's conclusion. Then, find an answer choice that contradicts it in some way. This question stem explicitly directs you to the last sentence of the passage, where the author is defending the mayor from criticism, asserting that the growing inequality of wages is beyond her control. Since the passage is saying, "This isn't the mayor's fault," predict a correct answer that says, "No, this is the mayor's fault."

Choice (A) should stand out immediately as going against the passage. If the mayor could have initiated policies that would have educated those who are now earning less, then her policies, to be precise, her policy of inaction, is at least partially to blame for the problem of wage inequality. This is exactly the sort of additional evidence you want, and choice (A) is correct.

The wrong choices largely focus on misleading shifts in terminology from the passage. Choice (B) sidesteps the wage issue, as more employment of high school graduates would not necessarily raise their wages. Choice (C)'s logic requires that we assume "blue-collar" equals "lesseducated," which is too large a shift in terminology. Choice (D) only discusses taxes and avoids wages altogether. Choice (E) only mentions protection of "city workers," again avoiding the education issue from the passage.