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.
思路是就算再次贬值也不能刺激经济了(肯定有其他条件限制)
A:之前两次贬值政治家也说了同样的话(跟不能刺激经济没关系)
B:现在工厂已经接近最大产能(就算贬值刺激出口也不能生产出更多产品了)
C:只有出口多才是健康经济(那不就支持结论了吗)
D:世界其他厂家的货币都很稳定
E:增加工厂的生产效率可以在不贬值的情况下增加竞争力(错误选项,跟贬值不能刺激经济无关,题目前提是要贬值,这里说的是不贬值)
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论