Critical Reasoning

Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
E

poonam1279 wrote:Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
E

To summarize, the proponent of the new law is saying that this new law is justified because there was a law enacted before that worked even though some aspects were deemed unconstitutional. It can be assumed that this newly proposed law contains some aspects that are flawed.

(A) This may strengthen the opposition's position, but not that much.
(B) This will weaken the opponent's position
(C) This will weaken the opponent's position
(D) This will weaken the opponent's position
(E) Strengthens the opposition's stance the most. The proponent of the new law states that the fact that a flawed law has worked before implies that it will likely work again. To point out that this thought process is weak would greatly strengthen their stance.

So between (A) and (E), (E) is the best answer choice.

So I feel E is a better option