Explanation
Reading the question: the prompt gives a plan, and the
question stem asks us to cast doubt on the plan. We care about whether or not
domestic agriculture improves in competitiveness. So we can use that as a basic
filter and ask of each answer choice, "does or could domestic agriculture still
improve in competitiveness?"
Applying the filter: choice (A) is irrelevant, because the
domestic agriculture could still improve in competitiveness; the plan doesn't
have a deadline. Choice (B) tells us that competitors might still have an
advantage. But even then, the domestic agriculture may be in a better relative
position that it was before; the gap has narrowed; it has improved. So (B) is
out. Choice (C) looks promising; if domestic farmers pocket the money, domestic
agriculture does not become more competitive. So choice (C) stays in.
(D) is hardly great news, but the domestic agriculture could still improve in
competitiveness. So (D) is out. We eliminate (E), also, since (E) raises
considerations immaterial to whether the plan will work. We're left with (C).
Logical proof: we can apply the negation test to (C). If
we negate (C), domestic producers of agriculture have lots of incentive to use the subsidies to invest in agrarian
technology. In that case, the expectation that domestic agriculture would improve
in competitiveness is strengthened. The fact that the negated (C) is a
strengthener confirms that non-negated (C) is a weakener.
The correct answer is (C).
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.