Which of the following, if true, providesevidence that most logically completes the argument below?

According to a widely held economichypothesis, imposing strict environmental regulations reduces economicgrowth.
This hypothesis is undermined bythe fact that the states with the strictest environmental regulations also havethe highest economic growth.
This factdoes not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since______.

• those     states with the strictest environmental regulations invest the most in     education and job training
• even those     states that have only moderately strict environmental regulations have     higher growth than those with the least-strict regulations
• many     states that are experiencing reduced economic growth are considering     weakening their environmental regulations
• after     introducing stricter environmental regulations, many states experienced     increased economic growth
• even those     states with very weak environmental regulations have experienced at least     some growth

在A,C,E中争议，A是答案，我个人觉得A是答案，他因削弱，但是这个他因好像要有一点常识，就是教育能促进经济发展。原文说的是环保和经济发展有关系，要削弱就是没关系，C显然说了有关系，所以不选，E说即使very weak environmental regulations都能促进经济增长，所以还是有关系。所以选A，大家讨论一下。刚刚搜了下，争得那叫一个热闹，最后也没个结论

　since ,  后面我觉得是要讲清楚why those states could improve their economic growth, because the investment in eduction and job training ,  然后这两个原因引起了经济发展，
　　　而且前面的一句话是this fact does not show that enviromental regulations promote growth.

　　但Ｅ的话，　反倒是加强了，　enviromental regulation somehow contribute to promote growth 了．　　

　但真的考试的时候我觉得我肯定是选不对的。　　　

你们两个都说得对。吵得热闹只是有些人的逻辑训练不够好。

至于题外知识，教育与经济发展的关系可能是，但是职业训练与经济发展的关系就应该不算是了。

A还是比较明显的
用This factdoes not show that environmental regulations promote growth, however, since______.提出问题说明要求答案对于原文中已经提出的理由进行削弱，因此必须强调strict environmental regulations不是highest economy growth 的原因，从这个角度看BCDE都是无关的。