Self-paced
Economist: Some policymakers believe that our country’s continued economic growth requires a higher level of personal savings than we currently have. █ ██████ ███████████ ████████ █████ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ █████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████████ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████████ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ████████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████████
Stimulus Structure
The economist starts by explaining a view some policymakers hold: for the country to continue growing economically, the level of personal savings needs to increase. The economist then discusses a recent legislative proposal designed to incentivize people to put money into savings accounts by letting them earn interest tax-free until they withdraw the money.
The supporters of this proposal say that it will allow banks to have more money to loan, at a "relatively small" loss to the government in tax revenue. The economist responds by pointing out that similar tax-incentive programs in the past haven't actually increased the overall level of personal savings, since the money people put into these programs usually just comes from their other personal savings: i.e., they just move money from their regular savings accounts into the tax-advantaged ones, instead of saving more money overall.
15.
The author criticizes the proposed █████████████ ███████ ██
a
challenging a premise ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █████
This is correct. The premise provided for the proposal is that it will increase the amount of money available for banks to loan, while costing the government relatively little in tax revenue. But if people aren't actually saving more money, just rearranging where they put their savings, then the amount of money banks have to loan won't increase. This undermines the policy backers' premise justifying why this program should be adopted.
This answer choice might be tricky, because it doesn't explicitly mention what might be the most obvious aspect of the economist's reasoning: his use of an analogy with past programs. But even though it doesn't mention the analogy itself, this answer choice accurately describes what that analogy is intended to do: it undermines the premise provided by the policy's backers.
b
pointing out a ████████████ █████ ████████████
Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't mention any disagreement. If anything, the backers of the recently proposed policy, if they are different from the "policymakers" mentioned in the first sentence, would seem to agree with those policymakers' views about the importance of increasing the level of personal savings.
c
demonstrating that the ████████████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████████
Incorrect. The economist never says the policy would be unfeasible to implement. He only says that it won't achieve the effect the policy backers claim it will: it won't increase the amount of overall savings, and so won't increase the amount of money banks have to loan, as the policy backers claim.
d
questioning the judgment ██ ███ ████████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ███████████
This is a tricky answer choice, because it is the only one that mentions — correctly — the fact that the economist does appeal to an analogy with past programs that have been ineffective. The problem is that this answer choice gets the details of that analogy wrong. The economist never says that these past programs were advocated by the same people backing the current policy proposal. We only know that the programs were similar, not that the same people were advocating them.
This may seem like a small distinction, and perhaps an allowable assumption, especially if none of the other answer choices seem right. But while some question types (like Most Strongly Supported) might allow a small amount of "stretch" when it comes to assumptions, on a Method of Reasoning question, we want to be as descriptively accurate as possible. This discrepancy is enough to disqualify this answer choice, and should be a cue to go back to the other answer choices and give them a closer look.
e
disputing the assumption ████ █ ███████ ██ █████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████
The economist doesn't comment on whether a program to increase savings is actually necessary or not. He just says that this particular program, based on tax incentives, won't work to increase savings.