1000CR question

[saurabhmahajan]

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

[arora007]

E is it?

[diebeatsthegmat]

E is it?

why i read E i always feel that E says its because you and your program gets lucky!!! thats why it can gain economy and just do another program to see if it can gain economy again?? lol lol
it does sound like a woman with big mouth! lol

[vishalj]

IMO D

The author's conclusion is that the new law is justified because it pulled this country out of great economic troubles.

We need a choice that support's opponent's argument or weaken the author's conclusion. D is saying that the severity of the economic troubles is same in nauture during the current time and the previous time. So we don't really need a new law. Using the present law, we could have diverted the economic troubles.

[arora007]

vishalj the answer indeed is E. I checked with other forums.

As it is...we guys don't have answers to women with BIG mouths... except to give in!!