Proponents of utilitarianism

[HemantR606]

Proponents of the theory or social utilitarianism hold that the value of human capital should bear an inherent relation to its social utility. Although maximizing the value of the human capital is both morally defensible and economically praiseworthy, the theory of social utilitarianism has severe practical limitations. If the price of labor were to become a measure of social utility and not of scarcity, the labor market would suffer significant distortions and may well reduce, and not increase, the current level of human capital.

The argument proceeds by

(A) Questioning a proposed strategy by showing that, if implemented, such a strategy could compromise the very objectives it is trying to achieve.
(B) Criticizing a course of action by showing that, even if morally defensible, the end result does not always justify the means necessary to achieve it.
(C) Criticizing a strategy by suggesting that there is an alternative way of achieving its proposed advantages without risking a number of serious disadvantages.
(D) Conceding that a social policy may have certain ethical advantages that are ultimately outweighed by the impossibility of putting such a policy into effect.
(E) Establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of a social policy whose goal is antithetical to the central tenets of a free market economy.

The given answer is (A). But the proposers said nothing about the objective. So, why (A)?

[RonPurewal]

per the forum rules, please post a citation of the original source of this problem.

thanks.