One of the key reasons that imports of certain finished goods of

pls explain question as well as each option.

pls help ?? why a ? a and e looks same

One of the key reasons that imports of certain finished goods of category A in country X have increased significantly is that it’s cheaper for country X’s retailers to import these goods than to purchase the same from local manufacturers. Hence, as it often happens, because of these increased imports, the value of country X’s currency has correspondingly decreased, making critical imports such as steel more expensive for the country.

The information above supports which of the following hypothesis about country X?

What do we know?

Product A is cheaper to import than to purchase from local manufacturers. As a result, its import have increased significantly. Consequently, country X’s currency has correspondingly decreased, making critical imports such as steel more expensive for the country.

A. An additional significant import tariff on goods in category A will likely help increase the value of currency of country X in the coming future.

An additional significant import tariff on these goods could increase the price of imported goods, making them less attractive for retailers to import. This, in turn, could reduce the demand for imported goods and potentially increase the value of the currency of country X. While this is not a guarantee, it is a plausible scenario that supports option A.

B. Appropriately subsidizing industries that import steel is likely to negate any impact that country X's currency devaluation has had on its GDP.

The given scenario does not offer any insights into whether the devaluation of country X's currency had a positive, negative, or neutral effect on its GDP. In the absence of this crucial information, it is impossible to support the hypothesis presented in option B.

C. Due to increased imports of category A goods, many consumers in country X have experienced lower prices than they paid before.

Firstly, it is unclear what the prices of category A goods were before the increase in imports. It is possible that local manufacturers were offering these goods at lower prices initially, and then raised the prices later. If this is the case, consumers could have initially enjoyed cheap prices from local manufacturers, and then similar prices from imports.

D. The loss in local production of goods caused by corresponding increased imports has not had as severe an impact on the GDP of country X as has the increase in steel prices.

The scenario does not provide any information about the impact of the loss in local production of goods on the GDP of country X. Therefore, it is not possible to support option D based on the given information.

E. To prevent any further reduction in its currency's value, country X must restrict imports more severely than it currently does.

The above is too broad and does not specifically address goods in category A. As such, option A is a better fit for the scenario than option E.

­One of the key reasons that imports of certain finished goods of category A in country X have increased significantly is that it’s cheaper for country X’s retailers to import these goods than to purchase the same from local manufacturers. Hence, as it often happens, because of these increased imports, the value of country X’s currency has correspondingly decreased, making critical imports such as steel more expensive for the country.

The information above supports which of the following hypothesis about country X?

Option Elimination 

A. An additional significant import tariff on goods in category A will likely help increase the value of the currency of country X in the coming future. - yes, it aligns. Still, the critical issue here is "will likely.' Hold on, "will likely" is not as strong as "will," as will likely take into account the possibility of not happening.  
Will - strong. Definitive.
Will likely - strong probability but acknowledges the possibility that it may not occur.
Could - indicates possibility, but it's more uncertain or open-ended than "will likely."
So, ok. 

B. Appropriately subsidizing industries that import steel is likely to negate any impact that country X's currency devaluation has had on its GDP. - The "impact that country X's currency devaluation has had on its GDP" is out of scope. 

C. Due to increased imports of category A goods, many consumers in country X have experienced lower prices than they paid before. - Maybe the retailers are making huge profits and passing nothing to end consumers. It "might be a true category." Wrong. 

D. The loss in local production of goods caused by corresponding increased imports has not had as severe an impact on the GDP of country X as has the increase in steel prices.  - "An impact on the GDP of country X" is out of scope.

E. To prevent any further reduction in its currency's value, country X must restrict imports more severely than it currently does. - We have a minimum condition here: "restrict imports more severely than it currently does." - Y to achieve "any further reduction in its currency's value." - X. The argument states that as imports increase, the currency valuation decreases. However, there is no mention of how significantly imports impact the currency valuation. Say there are five other critical parameters: inflation (I), government debt(GD), trade balances (TB), interest rates (IR), and political stability (PS). The argument doesn't say that imports are the minimum condition. This may be why importing more is the currency devalues because Imports + I are usually present, or imports + GD, TB, IR, or PS are present. TB may be the minimum condition (without which currency devaluation will not occur). So we can't conclude from the argument that Imports is the minimum condition. Had the argument said that "only when imports increase, the currency devalues," or "imports are the primary reason for currency devaluation," we could have considered option E. However, in the absence of these criteria in the argument, there is no way we can establish this minimum condition. As discussed, the minimum conditions may be TB, GD, PS, or I. We don't know. 

1. Read Carefully
2. Identify the Facts/Premises

1. Category A imports ↑ (totally because they’re cheaper than domestic)
2. Currency value ↓ (as a consequence of ↑ category A imports)
3. Steel (and other critical imports) now cost more (because the currency is weaker)

3. Spot the Inference/Conclusion
What follows logically? If ↑ category A imports make the currency weak (which then makes steel expensive), then doing something that reduces category A imports should tend to strengthen the currency (and thereby make steel less expensive again).
4. Predict Before Looking at Choices
You’d predict an answer that says:
5. Scan & Negate
Check each option by negating it—if the negation fails to disrupt our predicted link, eliminate it.
A. “An additional significant import tariff on goods in category A will likely help increase the value of currency of country X in the coming future.”

• Negation: Even if you add a big tariff, it won’t help the currency’s value.
• Does that break the passage’s causal chain? Yes—since the stimulus says cheap category A imports are what’s driving the currency down, taxing them (making them less cheap) ought to push the currency back up. Negating A contradicts that logic, so A is a keeper.

B. “Subsidizing industries that import steel will negate any impact of currency devaluation on GDP.”

• This is about steel subsidies and GDP. The passage never talks about GDP or steel subsidies, so it’s irrelevant.

C. “Because of increased category A imports, consumers have experienced lower prices.”

• The passage says category A imports drove currency down and made steel more expensive. It never claims that category A goods themselves got cheaper to consumers (and anyway, that’s not our inference). So C is out.

D. “Loss in local production from more imports hasn’t hit GDP as badly as higher steel prices have.”

• Again: GDP comparison. No mention of GDP in the stimulus. Drop D.

E. “To prevent any further reduction in its currency’s value, country X must restrict imports more severely than it currently does.”

• This is tempting—it sounds close to our predicted idea. But it says “must” restrict more severely (a prescriptive “must”), which goes beyond a hypothesis (“will likely help”) into a policy obligation. The stimulus only supports a probable outcome (“...will tend to raise the currency value”), not that they must do it or that it’s the only path. The strong “must” pushes E too far.

6. Confirm the Best Answer
Only A matches exactly what our prediction was: cutting down category A imports (via a tariff) should likely strengthen the currency.

Option a is correct because if country x adds import tariff on category A goods then demand for foreign currency will reduce and local currency will increase and it will impact country currency.. currency will be appreciated which is good for gdp..