Compared to other answers, (A) most strengthens. It endorses the idea of using actual results to evaluate legislation, rather than just the legislation’s intent. This supports the author’s reliance on premises about who actually does or does not benefit from the legislation as part of reaching the conclusion that the legislation shouldn’t be commended.

(B) is designed to support a conclusion that wealthier people shouldn’t have too much influence on how a community is governed. But the argument concerns whether a particular kind of legislation should be commended, not whether some people should have less control over a community’s governance.

(C) doesn’t help us prove that the legislation isn’t good or commendable. We have no reason to think that the community’s tax laws and zoning regulations don’t apply equally to everyone in the area. They do apply to everyone — some people can benefit more than others, but that doesn’t mean they don’t apply to everyone. (Don’t confuse whether the laws apply to everyone equally with whether laws benefit everyone equally.)

The legislation at issue does benefit professionals. So we don’t know that it’s not to anyone’s benefit.

(E) gives us a reason to think the legislation might be good, because it benefits the well-to-do professionals. This undermines the argument.