In discussing the pros and cons of monetary union among several European nations, some politicians have claimed that living standards in the countries concerned would first have to converge if monetary union is not to lead to economic chaos. This claim is plainly false, as is demonstrated by the fact that living standards diverge widely between regions within countries that nevertheless have stable economies.
In attempting to refute the politicians’ claim, the author does which one of the following?
(A) argues that those making the claim are mistaken about a temporal relationship that has been observed
(B) presents an earlier instance of the action being considered in which the predicted consequences did not occur
(C) argues that the feared consequence would occur regardless of what course of action was followed
(D) gives an example of a state of affairs, assumed to be relevantly similar, in which the allegedly incompatible elements coexist
(E) points out that if an implicit recommendation is followed, the claim can be neither shown to be true nor shown to be false
It's b/w B & D for me.
I chose D.
B: Not entirely accurate because there is no "action" (monetary union) here. The regions use the same currency because they are in the same country, not because of monetary union.
D: Example of state of affairs that is relevantly similar (two disparate regions with the same currency), in which the allegedly incompatible elements (two regions) coexist (country has a stable economy).