Frankie makes a claim, without providing any evidence for it: if jelly makers had some incentive to use cloudberries, income for people who gather cloudberries would increase. Anna rejects this claim up front, saying that Frankie's plan will not work. As evidence, she points to what happened in the past with cacao. Cacao was originally harvested from wild plants, but once it became popular in Europe, demand outpaced the supply that cacao gatherers were able to provide. As a result, cacao gatherers were replaced by commercial cacao farms. Similarly, Anna says, increasing demand for cloudberries will lead to domesticated berries from farms completely replacing berries gathered in the wild. Thus, Frankie's plan will fail to increase income for cloudberry gatherers.

Frankie suggests one cause-and-effect relationship: increasing demand for cloudberries will cause increased income for cloudberry gatherers. Anna rejects this and suggests another cause-and-effect relationship based on an analogy. Keep in mind that appealing to a similar historical case is considered an argument by analogy, since it draws an analogy between the present and something that happened in the past: in this case, what happened with cacao. Anna says that just as domesticated cacao came to replace cacao gathered in the wild, so too will domesticated cloudberries replace wild ones if demand goes up. Thus, the net effect of Frankie's plan to increase demand for cloudberries among jelly makers will actually be the opposite of what she expects. If domesticated berries "completely supplant" ones gathered in the wild, income for cloudberry gatherers will go down, not up.