We can’t trigger the sufficient condition of (A), “any country that does not emerge...” because it’s the thing we’re trying to prove.

The contrapositive of (B) would support a conclusion about countries that do emerge quickly from recession, but that’s not what we need to conclude.

(B) is an attempt to weaken the argument. (B) tells us that the type of country specified in the conclusion (puts collective goals over individual goals) usually does not fail one of the necessary conditions that leads to quickly emerging from a recession.

(C) supports that a country will emerge quickly from recession, or, by contrapositive, that a certain kind of country isn’t willing to make new investments in the economy. We are trying to conclude that a certain kind of country (different than the kind specified in (C)) will not quickly emerge from recession.

This matches our prediction and allows the conclusion to be validly drawn. If (D) is true, we can connect putting collective goals before individual goals to not having confidence in policies, which leads to a failure of investment, and that leads to not being able to quickly recover from recession.

We are not discussing the likelihood of a country experiencing a recession. We are discussing whether a country can emerge quickly from a recession.

Also, if we fix the aforementioned issue, whether economic policies are the most significant factor or not doesn’t affect the argument.