Curbing government spending has been demonstrated to raise t

Here is the official answer

Answer choice (A) may be generally plausible, but the given premises do not mention the national deficit. This answer choice does not have to be true as a result of the information given in the argument. Refrain from bringing in any external facts/premises.

Answer choice (C) might also be generally plausible, but (C), too, requires an additional step from the premises. The fact that economists no longer recommend reduced government spending does not necessarily mean that many economists now recommend increased spending. It is possible that they recommend neutral spending levels.

Both answer choices (D) and (E) employ faulty logic. It may be true that reduced government spending will increase a currency's value, but we do not know whether the reverse is true. Increasing a currency's value does not necessarily have to result in reduced government spending. Similarly, though a weak currency will make exports more competitive, competitive exports do not necessarily indicate a weak currency; exports may be competitive on some other grounds (e.g, exceptional quality).

Answer choice (B) is correct, since it follows directly from the premises. According to the argument, curbing government spending can raise a currency's value. A weaker currency makes a country's exports more competitive. A stronger currency, then, would make a country's exports less competitive than they would have been with a weaker currency. Thus, curbing government spending CAN make a country's exports less competitive. Notice that the word can makes this answer choice a very limited claim. This choice does not state that curbing government spending will make a country's exports less competitive. Such an outcome is simply a possibility. Answer choice (B) is the correct answer.