Hi MagicMeat,Good question, and there's a small twist here worth untangling.
First, note this is an
EXCEPT question, so we're hunting for the technique the author does
NOT use. That means (E) isn't something that strengthens the argument - it's the one thing missing from it. So the real question is just:
what would (E) look like, and is it there?What "question the ethical basis of an economic situation" means: to challenge whether the situation is morally
right or wrong - fair, just, ethical. If the author had written something like
"It is unjust that foreign investors profit from our debt," that would be questioning the ethical basis. It's a judgment about right and wrong, not about what works.
Now here's the trap. The stimulus says
"The moral is clear." That word
moral looks like it points to ethics - but read what follows:
"a country can no more live without foreign trade than a dog can live by eating its own tail." That's a
practical lesson ("here's the takeaway"), not a statement about right and wrong. The author calls the results
"terrible consequences" - bad in a practical, economic sense, not immoral.
So the author describes, explains causes, and warns - but never says the situation is ethically wrong. That's why (E) is the answer: it's the
one technique not used.
Turn one knob to feel it: imagine the last line instead read -
-
"It is shameful and unfair that we let this happen." - now (E)
is used (an ethical judgment), and it would no longer be the answer.
-
"The lesson is clear: trade or sink." - still just practical advice, so (E) stays absent.
Same word
"moral" can mean
ethics or
a practical takeaway - here it's the second. That's the slip to guard against.
Answer: EMagicMeat
what does "question the ethical basis of an economic situation" mean? how does it strengthen the arument?