HELLO, would you please help me to solve this questio:

In the country of Veltria, the past two years' broad economic recession has included a business downturn in the clothing trade, where sales are down by about 7 percent as compared to two years ago. Clothing wholesalers have found, however, that the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time fell sharply in the first year of the recession but returned to its prerecession level in the second year.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the change between the first and the second year of the recession in the proportion of credit not paid off on time?
(A) The total amount of credit extended to retailers by clothing wholesalers increased between the first year of the recession and the second year.
(B) Between the first and second years of the recession, clothing retailers in Veltria saw many of their costs, rent and utilities in particular, increase.
(C) Of the considerable number of clothing retailers in Veltria who were having financial difficulties before the start of the recession, virtually all were forced to go out of business during its first year.
(D) Clothing retailers in Veltria attempted to stimulate sales in the second year of the recession by discounting merchandise.
(E) Relatively recession-proof segments of the clothing trade, such as work clothes, did not suffer any decrease in sales during the first year of the recession.

I can't realize the OG's reasoning about the answer b.

in the firs year of recession: the credit propotion paid off on time fell sharply.
in the seceond year of recession: the credit proportion paid off on time recovered to its prerecession level.

B. if the retailers' "costs" increased, then the deferment would increase thereafter.

B doesn't make sense as the rise in costs continued the second year which would not explain a recovery in the second year..

C seems logical

B clarifies the improved situation that "recovery" results from the payment that can be paid off on time.
because the rising costs in retailers possibly reduced the money availabe, the retailers thus deferred payment necessarily.

C the keyword "proportion" clearly notes that even if number of retailers were out, the ratio of credit payment to retailers does not directly connect.


I'm sorry for my poor explanation. hope it helps.

HI~
Question type:Resolve the paradox
1.Fall in the first yr
2.Return in the second yr
Any choice mention both maybe the correct answer.
Choice A&B mention both ,one of them will be the answer.
Choice A:"total amont of credit" is not mentioned, the stimulus only mentions "the proportion of credit".
So B is correct

Can someone please explain why C is better than D?

C assumes that retailers will gain if competitors go out of business. Is this a valid assumption given the broad economic recession?

Also, C does not indicate the percentage of businessmen who had financial difficulties.

I am leaning more towards D, although it is not clear if the attempt made by retailers was fruitful.

Thanks!

IMO C,
In the first year, business downturn might forced many retailers to delay paying off the credit, especially the retailors having financial difficulties, casuing the plummet in the pay off rate.
Given only the retailors financially sound were survived in the second year, the pay off rate would be returned to the normal level.

D, the 'attempt' does not guarantee 'increaced sales', and 'increased sales with dicounted price' doesn't necessarily mean 'profit'. What if the retailors discounted the price to the extent they would lose money, only to avoid bankruptcy? then the pay off rate would not be returned in the second year.