Self-paced
The widespread staff reductions in a certain region's economy are said to be causing people who still have their jobs to cut back on new purchases as though they, too, had become economically distressed. ████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████
Argument Breakdown
The argument concludes that within a certain region, people who still have jobs are not reducing their consumer spending in response to widespread layoffs in the area, despite claims that this is the case. The argument supports this with by explaining that these people with jobs are not saving more money than usual.
The argument is engaging in phenomenon-hypothesis reasoning: it attempts to rebut a hypothesis about consumer behavior by showing that a prediction of that hypothesis did not come to pass. If employed consumers really were reducing their spending, we would expect them to save more—so them not saving more is indirect evidence that they haven't reduced their spending.
Notable Assumptions
The argument assumes that if the people in question were reducing their consumer purchases, then they would save more money. In other words, the argument assumes there isn’t some third way that people might be spending their money, leading them to reduce consumption while also not saving more. If there truly is another option, then saving habits aren't great evidence of consumption.
18.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ███████
a
If people in ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ██ ███████████ █████
Debts would be a third way to spend money, meaning that people might not be saving more even though they’re reducing their purchases. So in order for the argument to function, it must assume that debt repayment hasn’t suddenly increased.
b
People in the ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ████ ████████ ██████ █████ █████████ ████████████
Assisting relatives financially could be a way to use money that involves neither consumption nor saving—but the argument’s assumption is that something like that isn’t happening. So to assume that this is happening isn’t necessary at all.
c
If people in ███ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ █████
The argument is only concerned with people who “still have their jobs” and not people who are having financial difficulties due to losing their jobs, so this is an irrelevant consideration.
d
People in the ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ █████ █████ █████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ████████
How people with jobs feel about their likelihood of making more money is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they’re currently cutting back on consumer purchases. The argument is only concerned with consumption habits—and there's no need for people to feel a certain way in order to analyze their spending and saving.
e
There exist no ██████████ █████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █ ██████
The argument is trying to infer information about sales of goods from statistics about saving habits. Although this indirect approach might make more sense in the absence of direct statistics, it doesn't depend on that absence. It's still possible to use indirect evidence, even when direct evidence exists.