Explanation

Reading the question: As in Drivers Over 30, here we have a couple short statements of evidence and then a statement of opinion--a conclusion. Here, the conclusion statement is introduced by the word "clearly," which is almost invariably used when a statement isn't clear, in which case that statement is an opinion. These brief arguments resemble syllogisms. The most famous syllogism is: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." When you confront a syllogistic or pseudo-syllogistic argument, you can build your filter using term matching.

Creating a filter: as in Drivers over 30, we can match terms by sketching or imagining a table:



The worst mismatch of terms here is the last one. The argument appears to equate economic growth and technological advancement. Or, possibly, it assumes that advanced tech is the cause of the economic growth and not something else, like lower taxes. Either one of these views is not stated or supported in the argument as it stands, so we have found a major weakness in the argument.

Applying the filter: The key is that there could be something else that has caused economic growth. That notion is conveyed by answer choice (C). Choice (A) isn't true; the conclusion is not a paraphrase, since, as we've said, it comes out of nowhere with the new terms "technology" and "advancement." Similarly, choice (B) is off because the argument is missing connections, not offering contradictory connections. Skipping to choice (E): this answer choice, like (A), would require mentioning "technological advancement" earlier in the argument. Similarly, (D) means there is a logical loop, but tech advancement is not referred to earlier. Note that, given the format of the answer choices, a logical test such as the negation test is not possible, so we have had to rely solely on our filter to get to the answer. The correct answer is (C).