GWD上的逻辑题，有点纠结

melody远行

Editorial:In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance.To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply.However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed.Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

A.The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

B.Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

C.People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.

D.The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.

E.People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.
这题答案是C选项，可是我觉得C有反对前提的嫌疑，因为原文中however后面的内容说不会高。有同学能给解释解释吗？感激不尽！

sdcar2010

You did not read carefully.  What is 不会高 in the passage and what is 会高 in (C)?

melody远行

谢谢！但是我还是有疑问，就是原文中说政府给worker的补助不会使这些worker的工资高于没有工作的人的补助，但是C选项相当于否定了该前提了

sdcar2010

Read again.  Income does not equal salary . . .

melody远行

理解了！感激