This possibility is not relevant to the argument. The argument claims that the declared goals (eliminating overcrowding and alleviating congestion) of the ordinance can’t be the actual goals; secondary goals are irrelevant to the discussion of whether the stated goals are the actual goals.

This is the flaw. The argument erroneously assumes that the only goals of an action are those that will be achieved; there is no support for this assumption. It is possible to have goals and not meet them, but the argument ignores this possibility.

This is descriptively inaccurate; the argument does not attack the source of the claim (which in this case would be the city council).

The argument is entirely about whether the stated goal of an action is the action’s actual goal; other beneficial effects are outside the scope of the argument.

This is descriptively inaccurate. (E) describes confusing the sufficient and necessary conditions, which does not occur in this argument.