Is it time to kick Russia out of the BRICs  ?If so, it may end up sounding like a famous ball-point pen maker--BIC. An argument is being made that Goldman Sach's famous marketing device  , the BRICs, should really be the BICs. "Is Russia really worth the name BRICs?" asks Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in an article for Foreign Policy. Aslund, who is also co-author with Andrew Kuchins of "The Russian Balance Sheet", thinks the Russia of Putin and Medvedev is just not worthy of inclusion alongside Brazil, India and China in the list of future economic powerhouses. He writes: "The country's economic performance has fallen to such a weak level that one must ask whether it has any say at all on the global economy, compared with the other members of its group. I have just returned from Moscow, which is always dull around this season. For the last seven years, Russia has taken very few measures to improve its economy. Instead, the state has been living on oil and gas." Economically, Aslund has the numbers on his side. The International Monetary Fund figures that the Russian economy will fall by 6.7 percent in 2009, while China will grow 8.5 percent and India 5.4 percent. There is less of a case for Brazil, with a fall of 0.7 percent, but it is still doing far better than Russia. But the BRICs are not just about economy. As is mentioned above, it is a marketing device to encourage investors   to focus on the big promising players. From an investment standpoint, it could be argued that Russia is leading the BRICs. Its stock market is up 128 percent this year while around 80 percent is for the other three. At very least, despite Russia's economic underperformance, its stock market outperformance does suggest it is indeed one of the group. According to the passage, which country will enjoy the biggest increase in 2009? A) China B) Russia C) Brazil D) India

A