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.

大全-1-3. 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）

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so

Why D is not correct?

Thanks.

D is not a defence position

If economic troubles present are as seriously as those that have

led to the present law (as D points out), the law can,to some

extent, be believed to be eligible , since the New Deal has proved

their ability to pull the country out of great troubles (as the

author points out).

The New Deal succeeded in the past, and now that the situation at

present is similar, why doubt their ability?