Question

the author of passage 1 believes that the gao report “probably won’t” (line 9) horrify lawmakers because
a) the report indicates that farm subsidies are not as harmful as many suggest.
b) most members of congress do not live in districts that receive farm subsidies.
c) the legislature is too divided along ideological party lines.
d) many members of congress receive benefits from pro - subsidy farm lobbies.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option:

• Option A: If the report shows farm subsidies are less harmful, lawmakers might not be horrified, which fits the "probably won’t" context.
• Option B: Where lawmakers live (districts with subsidies) isn't directly tied to being horrified by the report.
• Option C: Ideological party divisions don't relate to the report's impact on horrifying lawmakers about farm subsidies.
• Option D: Benefits from lobbies don't explain why the report itself won't horrify them (the report's content, not lobby benefits, is the focus here).

So A is the most logical as it connects the report's content (subsidies' harm level) to lawmakers' lack of horror.

Answer:

A) the report indicates that farm subsidies are not as harmful as many suggest.