(A) would allow us to reach a conclusion that a tax should NOT be implemented. But it doesn’t relate to whether a tax that is already implemented should be repealed.

(B), restated, asserts that if a tax intended to affect people’s health hasn’t been in effect for at least one year, then it’s impossible to adequately gauge the impact of it. We know the tax was intended to reduce consumption of healthy foods. We also know that it was in effect for less than one year. So (B) allows us to infer that it’s impossible to adequately gauge the impact of the tax. That supports the judgment that we should have waited to repeal it.

(C) concerns what’s required before we should implement a law. But it doesn’t relate to whether a law that is already implemented should be repealed.

(D) allows us to reach a conclusion that a law SHOULD be repealed. But we’re trying to support a judgment that a law should NOT have been repealed.

(E) allows us to suport a conclusion that a tax should NOT be applied to something. But we’re trying to support a judgment that a tax that was already applied should have been kept in place.