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.
17.
The argument in the passage ████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
concluding that since ██ ████████ ███████████ ██ █ ████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ █████
(A) uses very abstract language—what is is actually talking about? The "supposed development" refers to
b
concluding that since ████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ███████████ ████████████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██ █ ███████████ ██ ████ ████████
The argument only discusses a single predicted consequence of reduced consumer spending:
c
arguing that since ████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████████ ████ ██████████████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ████████████
The argument doesn't raise the idea of economic self-interest guiding behavior. There's also no discussion of misinformation or error. The argument isn't really based on economics at all, but rather focuses on whether a predicted outcome actually occurred as a way to rebut a hypothesis.
d
arguing that since ███ ███████████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████████████ ███ ██ █████ ████████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ███ ███
The argument does assume that there are only two alternatives: either people reduce their consumer spending and increase their savings, or they keep spending like usual. However, the argument never actually states that these are the only possibilities. Nor is there an "argument" that one of these developments occurred; rather, the argument shows that one possibility didn't occur, and assumes that the other one did.
e
concluding that since ███ ████████ ██████████ █ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ █████
The argument doesn't actually go into the support for why anyone thinks employed people are reducing their consumer spending. Instead of addressing the reasoning of its opponents, the argument gets directly into counter-evidence to prove its own point. The argument also doesn't claim there's any ambiguity in the matter. It seems pretty certain that the evidence is clear.