Self-study
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. ████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author looks at a trend of job losses and concludes that, contrary to what some people say, those who have managed to keep their jobs are spending just as much money as they ever have, rather than reining in spending. As evidence, the author points out that these employed people haven’t been increasing the size of their savings accounts.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author counters a position held by others. She does this by first predicting a cause-and-effect relationship that we’d expect to see if that other position were true: if employed people really were reducing their spending, their savings accounts would likely grow as a result. The author then shows that the effect (more savings) hasn’t occurred, which undermines the likelihood that the cause (reduced spending) has occurred either.
17.
The argument in the passage ████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
concluding that since ██ ████████ ███████████ ██ █ ████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ █████
The supposed development is a reduction in spending by people who are still employed, and the expected consequence is unusual growth in those people’s saving accounts. The author concludes that since there’s been no unusual growth, there’s been no reduction in spending.
b
concluding that since ████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ███████████ ████████████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██ █ ███████████ ██ ████ ████████
The author only identifies one predictable consequence of reducing spending—namely, a growth in savings accounts. Also, the conclusion isn’t about whether something is the consequence of a certain behavior—rather, the conclusion is that the behavior itself isn’t occurring.
c
arguing that since ████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████████ ████ ██████████████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ████████████
The author never raises the subjects of economic self-interest, misinformation, error, or economically harmful behavior.
d
arguing that since ███ ███████████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ██████████████ ███ ██ █████ ████████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ███ ███
This ignores reasoning by cause-and-effect, which is central to the author’s argument. Instead, (D) describes the following, very different argument: since employed people either did or did not reduce spending, it must be that they did not reduce spending.
e
concluding that since ███ ████████ ██████████ █ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ █████
The only evidence presented is clear, not ambiguous. The author states, without any ambiguity, that there’s been no unusual increase in the size of employed people’s savings accounts.