Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
During the 1930s, Roosevelt’s New Deal expanded federal authority by creating several new government agencies designed to administer financial relief to the country, which had been devastated by the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing economic depression. In the decades following the depression, however, policymakers grew uncomfortable with the amount of power that had been given to the federal government and sought to discontinue many of the agencies created under the New Deal. Although they feared another economic depression, many prominent economists of that time sided with those policymakers, since
(A) further expansion of federal authority would hinder economic growth and increase the risk of another economic depression.
(B) many agencies created under the New Deal were designed to provide financial relief, not to maintain economic stability.
(C) most Americans feared expansion of federal authority more than they feared another economic depression.
(D) the power and authority of many agencies created under the New Deal had expanded well beyond the limits defined in their respective agency charters.
(E) most policymakers of that time considered federal regulation of the market to be an emergency measure that, as such, should only be temporary.

This option sounds more logical because it fits into the view of most economists, which is to achieve economic stability. However, those agencies weren't bringing economic stability but just giving out financial relief which does not guarantee economic stability.

Just as the old saying goes, "prevention is better than a cure" Hence, many agencies created under the New Deal were designed to provide financial relief (''a cure") but were not bringing about/maintaining economic stability ("a prevention").