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.
Here plz clarify between the contendors A,C and E.
A could be right as the research of america is wrongly focused thus change in focus is req and not increase in investment.
C i do not understand...
E could be right as USA has a different age distribution once this becomes ok then the saving will improve???
Plz explain ur answers...

I'm stumped by it as well. What's the source of the question? & is there an official explanation?

confusing options, true.

C is the best option though, because the argument says that if US wants to grow fast in 3 decades, it must change tax code. C says that in short run, high consumption rates bring prosperity.

Here we have to notice that short run is equivalent to 3 decades. But according to the argument, consumption rate should be decreased by changing tax code, which, according to C, will not help in bringing about growth in short run.

Agree with sondenso.

In order to weaken an argument, we should always try and negate the assumption, which over here is being done in option C.

HI,
It is avl in 1000 CR document NO OE avl..

I just encountered this question in my 1000CR document. The OA is E in my file. It also is the answer that makes sense logically.

The argument is the tax code should be changed to increase savings. Well, if the population is aging and savings will increase naturally without the change in tax code, the argument is weakened.

E!!!!!

In E, I found savings rate, which is not mentioned in the argument. Do we need to assume this as the savings?


_________________

Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

i thought its E