Banning imports of certain products forestalls competition by forcing

Banning imports of certain products forestalls competition by forcing consumers to buy domestic products. Yet, preventing competition from imports discourages domestic producers from making the improvements necessary to bring products up to the highest possible standards. Therefore, there is no domestic consumer advantage to banning imports of certain products.

Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the conclusion?

A. Import bans can provide domestic producers the time they need to bring to market products they otherwise would not have the financial resources to develop. Correct answer

B. Import bans on certain products often cause other countries, whose companies manufacture those products, to enact their own import bans. Irrelevant

C. A country's economic strength is more important to its survival than the availability of choice to its consumers. Irrelevant

D. When there is not a significant price difference, consumers tend to choose the products of domestic producers over those of foreign producers. Not strong enough

E. Bans and tariffs on imports can have unpredictable effects on currency exchange-rates. Irrelevant

A. Import bans can provide domestic producers the time they need to bring to market products they otherwise would not have the financial resources to develop.
This directly attacks the conclusion "there is no domestic consumer advantage to banning imports of certain products".

B. Import bans on certain products often cause other countries, whose companies manufacture those products, to enact their own import bans.
No impact on conclusion. Conclusion speaks about 'domestic consumer advantage'.

C. A country's economic strength is more important to its survival than the availability of choice to its consumers.
No impact on conclusion.

D. When there is not a significant price difference, consumers tend to choose the products of domestic producers over those of foreign producers.
No evidence in premise available to conclude

E. Bans and tariffs on imports can have unpredictable effects on currency exchange-rates.
Out of discussion

Official Explanation:

(A) This is a Weaken question.

The argument claims that there are no consumer benefits to banning certain imports because import bans reduce competition, meaning that domestic producers will not meet the highest standards. One common way to weaken an argument like this would be to provide some other way in which consumers would benefit from import bans. The argument shifts the scope from one disadvantage to the consumer to a broad claim that there are no advantages to the consumer. It only takes one advantage to disprove the conclusion:

Choice (A) is correct. It is a benefit to the consumer that is shown to be a direct result of the import ban.

Choice (B) is irrelevant. Whereas an import ban in another country might have a domestic effect, that effect wouldn't fall on "consumers".

You're not concerned with the good of the country as given in choice (C). The conclusion makes a claim about benefits to consumers.

Choice (D) reflects a preference when choice is available, but it doesn't show any advantage to consumers when choice is not available.

"Unpredictable effects" as in choice (E) will almost never be part of a correct answer because those effects could be positive or negative. In this question, it's difficult to know which would be better because linking this choice to consumer advantage requires so many additional