This does not weaken the argument. (A) does not tell us how this decision impacted the nation’s economic health, or if the decision to improve human indicators was successful. We know that this decision resulted in slower per capita GNP growth, but if this is associated with improvements in economic health, then this actually aligns with the views in P3. Without knowing how this decision impacted human indicators or economic health, (A) doesn’t impact the argument.

This is an example of a nation that improved its human indicators by focusing on improving its per capita GNP, so this is a counterexample to the views of P3. P3 says that we should direct attention away from improving per capita GNP and focus on human indicators, but in this example, human indicators were improved by focusing on per capita GNP.

This doesn’t weaken the argument. (C) does not tell us how this decision impacted the nation’s economic health, or if the decision to improve human indicators was successful. We know that this decision resulted improvements in the per capita GNP, but we don’t know if this is associated with improvements in economic health. Without knowing how this decision impacted human indicators or economic health, (C) doesn’t impact the argument.

This doesn’t weaken the argument. This doesn’t tell us if the decision to improve human indicators was successful. According to P3, it’s okay if per capita GNP doesn’t improve as long as human indicators improve; here, we don’t know if that’s happening, so this example doesn’t impact the argument.

This is in line with the view in P3. In this example, the country focuses on improving per capita GNP, and its human indicators don’t improve. P3 says that countries should try to improve human indicators instead of per capita GNP.