Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic's currency, the pundra, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially. Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.
Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?
Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.
After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.
The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.
Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.
A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.
目的|to cause 〖a similarly sized increase 〗in exports(和过去12年或者过去5年商品由于货币贬值导致的出口增加)
方案|和12年前以及5年前一样让货币贬值
B说过去几十年产能都是低迷的,现在产能近乎最大值,这意味着,过去那两次的increase在其他变量和现在保持不变的情况下,是一定没有现在的increase大的(因为现在产能更大了!!所以刺激后,出口应该更有货源),故无法实现a similarly sized increase。
套路,过去不代表现在和未来,那么指出过去和现在以及未来的不同,就是削弱了
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论