逻辑问题，找不到原题所在处

dajdaj

Two years ago, the government of Runagia increased by 20 percent the government-provided pensions paid to Runagians over 65.The aim of the increase was to stimulate the economy in the rural regions of the country, where most pension recipients live.Statistics, however, show that there has been no increase in economic activity in those regions since then, but that there has been noticeably more spending in the urban areas.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the increase resulted in the unintended state of affairs described?



A. Until the pensions were increased, many Runagians over 65 in rural regions had been receiving support from their children who live in urban areas.

B. The pensions were increased when the number of people below the poverty level in rural areas of Runagia reached an all-time high.

C. City-dwellers in Runagia rarely travel to rural regions of the country.

D. The Runagian postal system is so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks for pension checks to reach recipients in rural areas.

E. On average, the pensions were higher in rural than in urban areas before the increase.



A
难道不是选B？

逆水潜龙

A说以前没有pension时有他们的子女给予生活费。现在有pension增加够他们所需了，自然子女会少给些，实际上他们拥有的钱就和没增加时差不多了。
B我怎么看怎么无关。不懂怎么解释。本来拿样本和总体比较就没可比性，而且all-time high这概念更没关。难道all-time high就能解释，比all-time high少一丁点的就不能了吗？