Does not parallel the relationships in the stimulus. The stimulus describes an incentive (have more local projects) that backfires (increased government spending and taxation); in (A), there is no incentive.

The smaller companies banding together to compete could lead to something that is a “backfire”, but we don’t know that it did, and we can’t assume that it’s an unfavorable outcome on its own.

Does not parallel the relationships in the stimulus. The stimulus describes an incentive (have more local projects) that backfires (increased government spending and taxation); (B) describes an action (finance irrigation) rather than an incentive, and this action led to things (fertile land + food is grown) that had both positive and negative effects (helps consumers in valley, hurts farmers elsewhere).

An incentive is created (sell the most = prizes), and this incentive leads to an unfavorable outcome (lowered profits).

Does not match the relationships in the stimulus. The stimulus describes an incentive (have more local projects) that backfires (increased government spending and taxation); (D) does have an action with, maybe, a very weak backfire effect (buy in bulk to save money but spend the same amount—however, they got more food), but there is no incentive.

Does not match the relationships in the stimulus. The stimulus describes an incentive (have more local projects) that backfires (increased government spending and taxation). The stimulus’ incentive comes from a higher power, and that is absent from (E). The backfire effect in the stimulus is almost ironic, and (E) is missing this irony. Additionally, the stimulus and (C) has people fighting to have more of a thing (funds, prizes), but (E) is about one entire thing (the center).