PT147.S1.Q22

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

Incorrect. (A) assumes that the stimulus is talking about one phenomenon or situation that is agreed upon by both the economists and the consumer advocate, and that the advocate is just contesting the economists' explanation of that phenomenon or situation. So, for example, (A) might work if the advocate were trying to explain why price gouging is efficient, and just rejecting the economists' explanation for this phenomenon.

But that's not the structure of this stimulus. If you're having trouble seeing this, try asking: "an alternative explanation for what?" For what price-gouging is? No, because the author tells us what price-gouging is and doesn't dispute that definition. You might argue that the advocate provides an alternate explanation of what the effects of price-gouging are, but that's not the point at issue. The economists aren't primarily arguing that "price-gouging has effects," but claiming that price-gouging is efficient. And the consumer advocate doesn't try to "explain" the efficiency of price-gouging — she rejects that idea altogether.

So because there's not one agreed-upon thing that the advocate is trying to "explain" in a different way from the economists, (A) doesn't work as an answer choice.

Incorrect. The overall conclusion of the argument is either the final statement about price-gouging allocating goods to people with the most money, or the implied conclusion from that statement that price-gouging is not efficient (i.e., the economists are wrong). Either way, the statement we're looking at is not the main conclusion. A good clue is the "As a result" at the start of the last sentence, which signals that it is supported by the preceding ideas, including the claim that willingness to pay is not proportional to need.

Incorrect. The "reasoning disputed in the argument" is the economists' reasoning. The idea that "willingness to pay is not proportional to need" isn't part of the economists' argument. The economists seem to think that willingness to pay is proportional to need.

Incorrect. This statement is part of the advocate's argument. She isn't questioning its validity.