PrepTest 157, Section 1, Question 27

Working the answers

• A

  Never is contradicted by the possibility the author leaves open. Debt pressure could restrain harmful spending; the author doesn't rule out an overall benefit in every case.

• B

  The author doesn't say pollution-reduction subsidies are ineffective. Those are one kind of program that might be cut; subsidies for potentially harmful activities are another. Different effects of different subsidies don't show that the beneficial kind fails to work.

• C

  The environmentalists give two routes from debt pressure to possible harm: promoting exports and cutting domestic spending. That doesn't establish that promoting exports itself causes reduced domestic spending. These are separate parts of their argument, not a causal connection the author endorses between the two.

• D

  No threshold comparing debt payments with domestic spending is given. The author doesn't limit possible problems with debt to cases in which one amount exceeds the other.

• E
  Correct

  Decreasing spending on a project that would harm the environment can benefit the nation by preventing that harm. The final examples provide exactly that possibility. E says can, so it doesn't require every spending cut—or every instance of debt—to be beneficial.