Political Activist: Given the current economic state, the U.S. governm

Conclusion: the U.S. government should strongly consider nationalizing some banks.
To weaken this conclusion, we have show that nationalizing the bank will make the economic situation worst.

Answer:D

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Overview:

Question records a statement made by a political activist in support of nationalized banks. The political activist argues that the influx of government money to the banks indicates a start of the nationalization process. Therefore, under international law, the government must compensate the banks “for the full value of the assets that are assumed” and that by providing federal funding to failing banks, the government has essentially done that already. As a result, the government should simply declare nationalization of the banks in order to offer the banks federal protection. The question then asks for the statement that most strongly undermines the political activist’s argument about the need for official nationalization of the banks. The student should take care to read through the answer choices closely and compare each to the statements made by the political activist.

The Correct Answer:

D Answer choice (D) explains that the government itself is in debt to other nations. If the government nationalizes the banks, those banks become federal property that could conceivably be used to pay off that debt. As such, the federal protection would cease to exist, and the nationalization would have lost its purpose, as the political activist sees it. Answer choice (D) is correct.

The Incorrect Answers:

A The opinions of voters, while important at one level, do not necessarily undermine the political activist’s argument directly. As the answer choice offers no clear indication about what the voters disagree with concerning nationalization, it is impossible to use this as a contrast for the political activist’s statements. Answer choice (A) cannot be correct.

B The fact that a small percentage of U.S. banks do not need federal funding does not address the political activist’s immediate statements, nor does this call into question the political activist’s argument. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that the political activist is arguing for the nationalization of all banks (in fact, the political activist mentions the nationalization of “some” banks); it is just a statement about the benefit of nationalization for those that have already received federal funding. Answer choice (B) cannot be correct.

C Answer choice (C) offers a very tempting contradiction to the political activist’s claims, until there is a closer comparison to the wording in the passage. The political activist claims that the government has “basically” compensated many banks. This suggests that there might still be a degree of compensation to be completed and that the governments would need to finish compensating the banks. The answer choice, however, suggests that the political activist claimed the compensation to be entirely complete, and this is untrue. Answer choice (C), therefore, cannot be correct.

E The lack of success among nationalized banks in the United Kingdom bears no immediate comparison to the potential for nationalized banks in the U.S. without further context. There is always the potential for variations in the two scenarios that could alter the success in the U.S. compared to the success in the United Kingdom. Without that information, answer choice (E) is irrelevant and may be eliminated.
_________________

Only C and D are enticing, C is more if someone misread/overread the passage. I chose C by making a mistake of simply choosing it and falling in love with it.
After analysing i see that D is more a straightforward choice, forget POE. If US govt. is itself in debt how can a debt be used as collateral, eventually how can banks be fully protected. So, the conclusion that official nationalization of some banks fully protects falls apart.
In C, on the other hand, 'banks' word is used twice. Does it stand to same ones? Under timed condition it may look so but they might different. Let's say there are 100 out of which 80 require funding, which hold some debt. Govt. funded these 80 banks but this funding might not fully cover debt of 100 banks. This might look going into the nitty-gritty unnecessarily but a possibility. However, looking C this way makes us loose the core of the argument sticking to which is more important.
Finally, even if it is so that entire debt is not covered how does this weakens the passage's argument - are they(80 banks) protected under US govt?

Answer D.
_________________

(A) The voters in the U.S. are still divided on the issue of nationalization, and there does not seem to be enough support to merit it.
This is thoroughly out of context what the voters think is not our concern we are more concerned about the right laws than view of the voters

(B) A small percentage of banks in the U.S. are still solvent and have not received federal funding.
This is line with the argument that some banks have not recieved the required funding

(C) The federal funding that the banks in the U.S. have received has not entirely covered the debts that the banks now hold on the account books.
This leads strength to the if government nationalizes the bank then the banks will be better protected

(D) The U.S. government is heavily in debt to other nations, and the nationalized banks in the U.S. might represent necessary collateral to pay off that debt.
If the government itself is in debt then there is no way that they can better provide the security

(E) The nationalization of several banks in the United Kingdom was not as successful as the government had hoped it would be.
What other countries commit is least of our concern therefore out

Therefore IMO D

I don't really get the role of "however" in the following sentence-
The recent inflow of federal money into the majority of banks in this country, however, means...

I believe there is no contrast in the flow (before and after this sentence).
_________________