Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic's currency, the pundra, was weak:  its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies.  Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially.  Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.
Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?

(A) Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.
(B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.
The country won't be able to meet the increased demand for goods if its factories are already operating at a peak. Hence no increase in revenue from exports.
(C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.
(D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.
(E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.

The answer is B, but I choice E. Welcome to discuss this one.

做GWD到最后会发现weaken里有一种错误选项，就是这题E这个模样的，

大致就是没有weaken原文的结论。

拿这题来讲，题目是让你找一个选项可以weaken这个结论：in order to

cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government

should allow the pundra to become weak again.要weaken这个结论，你

得说明这个措施如何不好，如何不能达到目的，而不是说明有其它办法多

么好，那样对原来的结论造不成任何影响，因为题目不是让你比较之后选

个更好的，而是让你说明题干中的方案如何不好。

再留意一下，有很多这样的weaken题选项。

我觉得就是

你前天工作了10小时，多赚了100元。

你昨天又工作了10小时，又多赚了100元。

所以说：为了今天再多赚100元，你就应该再工作10小时。

E的答案是：你们老板因为你工作努力决定今天给你涨工资100元。

就是说，虽然老板涨了你工资多了100元，但是这并不能削弱你今天工作10

小时可以在这个涨工资的基础上再多赚100元。。。

不知道这个例子对不对。

文章中需要weaken的logical reasoning is: weaken currency--->economy recovery, so we need to cut dome the bridge between them...

E is out of scope,even if it is right, it can not diminish the above reasoning