I want you to completely forget the word scope. I personally hate it and while opinions are going to differ, I don't think it actually adds anything to your thought process. What matters is whether an answer choice actually answers the question, and scope is in my view a pretty flawed way of thinking about that.
Who cares if it talks about where the money is going? Why does that matter? We are trying to weaken the idea that a government program had a specific effect. There's a number of ways to do that but the easiest one I can think of is by showing that some other cause could have had that effect. That's a perfect match for B as I suspect you recognized.
E doesn't really do anything for us. Sure some of the funding was used for research, but research can be extremely valuable to actual improvement. If the research is about how to enforce best, this would be extremely valuable. More importantly E doesn't actually attack the cause and effect relationship that was laid out in the passage.
