[讨论]一道觉得有问题的逻辑题，拜谢

Concerned about financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the government of Runagia

decided two years ago to increase by 20 percent the government-provided pension

paid to all Runagians over 65.  Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible,

and the increase has been duly received by all eligible Runagians.  Nevertheless,

many of them are no better off financially than they were before the increase, in large

part because ________.

A.     They rely entirely on the government pension for their income

B.     Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check

C.     They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation

D.     The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high

E.     In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living

怎么都觉得E不对，觉得C对。

请兄弟姐妹点解~~~~~~~~

怎么没有人理睬呢？？？

自己顶一下

E）In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living意思为，这些老人的小孩还会给这些老人收入补贴，并且这些补贴给予的标准是让这些老人刚好能达到comfortable living level。

也就是说，老人的收入有两部分：一是政府给的，二是子女给的。因此存在这加法式子，如果要让老人收入增加，增加政府给的是不够的，还必需要保证子女给的不变或者增加。

但是根据E的意思，子女给的部分将会减少，因为子女要保证老人的总收入仍旧保持原来水平。

谢谢了 仔细看了下题，发现没注意negligible这个词，

于是突然想问 D为什么不对呢？其实这道题不就是问政府这个补助政策不好的原因，找削弱的选项吗？

题里面说的是“many of them are no better off financially than they were before the increase”，

同样的人前后比，都变得更差了。跟整体有多少人处于贫困线以下没关系

楼上，是这样的如果增加20%了，可是需要补助的人更多了，不是体现不到增加的意义吗？