Whereas United States economic productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent from 1945 to 1965, it has grown at an annual rate of only about 1 percent since the early 1970's. What might be preventing higher productivity growth? Clearly, the manufacturing sector of the economy cannot be blamed. Since 1980, productivity improvements in manufacturing have moved the United States from a position of acute decline in manufacturing to one of world prominence. Manufacturing, however, constitutes a relatively small proportion of the economy. In 1992, goods-producing businesses employed only 19.1 percent of American workers, whereas service-producing businesses employed 70 percent. Although the service sector has grown since the late 1970's, its productivity growth has declined.
Several explanations have been offered for this decline and for the discrepancy in productivity growth between the manufacturing and service sectors. One is that traditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. Yet traditional measures of manufacturing productivity have shown significant increases despite the undermeasurement of quality, whereas service productivity has continued to stagnate. Others argue that since the 1970's, manufacturing workers, faced with strong foreign competition, have learned to work more efficiently in order to keep their jobs in the United States, but service workers, who are typically under less global competitive pressure, have not. However, the pressure on manufacturing workers in the United States to work more efficiently has generally been overstated, often for political reasons. In fact, while some manufacturing jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, many more have been lost simply because of slow growth in demand for manufactured goods.
Yet another explanation blames the federal budget deficit: if it were lower, interest rates would be lower too, thereby increasing investment in the development of new technologies, which would spur productivity growth in the service sector. There is, however, no dearth of technological resources; rather, managers in the service sector fail to take advantage of widely available skills and machines. High productivity growth levels attained by leading- edge service companies indicate that service-sector managers who wisely implement available technology and choose skillful workers can significantly improve their companies' productivity. The culprits for service-sector productivity stagnation are the forces-such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary governmental regulation-that distract managers from the task of making optimal use of available resources.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the budget-deficit explanation for the discrepancy mentioned in highlight text?

赤字预算理论:假如是低赤字,那么会产生低利率,促进新技术投资(这里虚拟语气,表明当时是高赤字,进而的产生当时的高利率),从而激励服务部分的生茶率增长。而且目前technology的资源并不缺乏,所以原因在于manager没有利用好这些资源,更深层次的是因为有force(such as corporate takeovers and unnecessary governmental regulation)阻碍manager使用这些资源。
AB都是该理论在文中的部分内容,是strengthen。
C:反驳了One is that traditional measures fail to reflect service-sector productivity growth because it has been concentrated in improved quality of services. 但这一点不是财政赤字理论的内容,无关
D:这里它提出了另一个discrepancy的原因,service需要更多投资来保持生产力,但并没有证明deficit不是discrepancy的原因,无关。
E:如果因为赤字预算的原因,高利率让两个sector的生产力都下降,就不能说明service和manufacture生产力之间的差别,所以这个原因不成立。削弱,正解。

