Okay, this makes no sense to me. D was one of the answers I immediately rejected. Why? Its the "growth"
The methods of dealing with the debt crisis do not promote long-term
growth. Growth of what? Economic Growth? Debt growth?
The answer only makes sense if we assume the choice is referring to economic growth, not debt growth. The latter would make the choice clearly false, as a promotion of long-term debt growth would be an absurd solution.
So if its economic growth, economic growth is outside the scope of the passage! The question is what is the
author suggesting.
It is never stated or implied that economic growth would help with the debt crisis.
The crux of the argument is that the methods in place are inadequate because the a) provide a short term fix by extending maturities, but b) do nothing to decrease real interest rates.
D addresses
neither of these. Once again, it is talking about an ambiguous "growth", that has nothing to do with the entities discussed in the passage.
E at least addresses both components of the argument. I have a problem with the word "sacrifice" in E as well. I see that there is nothing in the passage that suggests there was a sacrifice made.
But, the author is suggesting that the banks solution should have decreased real interest rates rather than provided a short term increase in loan maturity, which is a lot closer to E than D.
The explanation from the book is totally nonsensical. The explanation for why choice E is wrong states, "Banks have extended, not restricted loan maturity". Of course the banks have extended loan maturity - and choice E clearly states that, by saying they pursued a strategy of "short term
increase in loan maturity. "
Can anyone explain this to me? This is really distressing, because my strategy revolves around rejecting answers outside the scope of the argument, and the "growth" in this choice seemed to me an obvious rejection.