Adapted from stanley newens's speech against the wage stop rule in 1974, mr. stanley newens, a member of the british parliament from harlow, spoke to the house of commons against the wage stop rule, which limited unemployment benefits. i greatly appreciate the opportunity of raising the subject of the wage stop rule, particularly as it has been a matter of controversy since its origin in the 1966 supplementary benefits legislation. according to the rule, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the amount of supplementary benefit payable to a claimant shall not exceed what would be his net weekly earnings if he were engaged in full-time work in his normal occupation. in other words, it means that if a man's earnings are less than the minimum established for benefit scales as laid down by the supplementary benefits commission, the claimant is liable to lose part of his entitlement to benefit. in other words, he is asked to exist—with his dependants, of course—at below the minimum acceptable standards. that is surely an appalling state of affairs. courtesy of the parliamentary archives why did stanley newens include the second paragraph in his speech? a. to teach listeners about the wage stop rule b. to persuade listeners to support his argument c. to introduce his argument against the wage stop rule d. to reflect on one of the worst parliamentary legislations