The recent decline in the value of the dollar was triggered by a prediction of slower economic growth in the coming year. But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government's huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about how to prevent future currency declines?
The government has made little attempt to reduce the budget deficit.
The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in economic growth.
The value of the dollar declined several times in the year prior to the recent prediction of slower economic growth.
Before there was a large budget deficit, predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar's value.
When there is a large budget deficit, other events in addition to predictions of slower economic growth sometimes trigger declines in currency value.
原文建立了government's huge budget deficit和adversely affected the dollar(即贬值)的关系,潜在含义就是没有deficit,就不会贬值,哪怕有predictions。
选项d撕破这层关系→没发生budget deficit,单靠predictions货币也可能贬值。
错选E,E是在budget deficit的前提下,说除了predictions还有其他因素导致贬值。但原文的重点其实是budget deficit和贬值的关系,而不是其他因素和贬值的关系。反之,E选项不能回答没有budget deficit的情况下,是否可能贬值,那就不能直接削弱或加强budget deficit和贬值的联系,所以错。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论