[求助]大全-I-3

Economies in which a high percentage of resources are invested in research and development show greater growth in the long run than do those in which resources are channeled into consumption. Japanese workers spend a higher percentage of their income investing in research and development than do American workers.

To grow as fast as Japan has in the past three decades, the United States must change the tax code in order to encourage savings and investment and discourage debt.

Which of the following, if true, tends to weaken the argument?

(A) Japanese research is more focused on consumers than is research by American firms.

(B) Class mobility, highly valued in American culture, is encouraged by a growing rather than a stagnant economy.

(C) Studies have shown that countries with high consumption rates prosper in the short run.

(D) Proposed changes to the tax code could involve strict limits on the deductability of interest, and increased allowance for research.

(E) Because a decreasing percentage of the United States is under 40, an age when savings are traditionally low, the savings rate will increase without changes to the tax code.

The correct answer is E, but I choose C. Though I can understand why E is correct, I cannot find the error that Answer C made.

In the statement, it says that in the long run investment in research & develepment generates greater growth than that in comsumption. In the question, it's asked that "To grow as fast as Japan ", so can I presume that in the answer it emphasis on the "Short run", and emphasis consumption more than investment in R&D?

文章结论：To grow as fast as Japan has in the past three decades, the United States must change the tax code in order to encourage savings and investment and discourage debt.
30年不能再认为是short-term了，所以C错。

E驳斥了must，因此weaken.

原文：the United States must change the tax code in order to encourage savings....

E: the savings ... will increase without changes to the tax code(超級大weaken)

這樣就很明顯了

故選E

无因有果，典型。