CR Please help

[chachi]

Some economists view kennedy-jhonson tax cutof 1964, which radically reduced corporate and indivisual taxes, as impetus for substantial properity enjoyed by the uS in thr late 1960's and early 1970's

which of the following if true would weakent the claim that the tax cut of 1964 was an impetus for economic prosperity?
a) modernized, more productive factorie werr built in late 60' as a result of the funds available by tax cuts

b) improved economic condition in wetern europe an djapan resulted in substantial increas in demand fro uS

c) the tax cut of 64 contained regulations concerning tax shelters that promoted investors to transfer their avings to more economically productive investments..

d) personal incomes after tax rose in the yrs following 64.

e) in the late 60',unemployemnt was relatively llower compared to early 60's


OA is b...i need an explanation why it cant be E



any help would be appreciated

[Kunal_gmat]

My feeling is that except for (B) everything else could have been possible as a result of tax cuts, including reduction in unemployment (E.g.The tax cuts help entrepreneurs create more job opportunities) But one cannot say that (B) was a fallout of tax cuts. (B) happened, hence the U.S. went up, not because of tax cuts. Hence, it weakens the argument.

[S0laris]

I thank that B weakens bcz if taxes wouldn't have been cut, considering Japans and EU damand from US, profit from outside demand would be greater

E is wrong bcz unemployment is bad thing ))

[nicolette]

Looking at it now, B makes sense