Explanation
Reading the question: the question is asking for an
"assumption." We parse by looking for opinion. Here, the opinion is indicated
by "therefore": the conclusion is the last sentence. The argument is that, of
two ways to stimulate the economy, increasing spending is a better way of stimulating
the economy. The middle sentence gives the sole piece of evidence for this
conclusion. We fixate on the phrase "the long run," a critical detail. The
argument depends on the idea that long-run benefits are important enough to be
a decisive way of determining which option here is better.
Applying the filter: Choices (B) and (E) both concern the
timetable or long-run versus short-run, but our prediction isn't helping us
evaluate them quickly. We can switch to the negation test.
Logical proof: negating (A), say there were not substantial work projects. That is
harmful, but there might be other ways to stimulate spending. So (A) is out. On
to (B): what if increasing spending had
to be done on a specific timetable? That would not necessarily be a problem. So
(B) is out. In (C), whether or not the government has to stimulate the economy
is a separate question from what the best way to do it is. Choice (E) is
irrelevant. The argument concerns only the best way to stimulate, not whether
to stimulate or how important it is to stimulate. So (E) is out. That leaves us
with choice (D). We can apply the negation test to (D). What if both methods
could be used together? The prompt does not specify that these two measures are
mutually exclusive. That appears to be an assumption. And if they aren't
mutually exclusive, the government might not be doing the so-called "most that
it can do" by just stimulating. The correct answer is (D).
If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.