Subscription pricing
Hi, I am having a lot of problem with this passage. But especially with this first question. I got it wrong during timed and BR and considering I eliminated (E) immediately upon reading, I am convinced that I did not understand this passage, more specifically the main point of it. I selected (D) (after debating for a long time between (B) and (D) because it basically said the same thing, which I realize should have been a red flag) and the reason I did was that I was unsure as to what was more important in the passage: the connection between African American art and African Artisanship or African American art and it's connection with the Western World/history of America. I assumed it was the latter because although Artisanship was primarily the focus of the first 1/2 of the passage, I felt that the second half solely focused on how Porter's work was different from Locke because it put African American art work in the context of American art. This also continued on to the last paragraph where what Porter was working on was African American art's influence on Western Art in general. Where am I going wrong I am genuinely at lost.
Here is my interpretation of the question:
Premise:
25 years ago (gap between avg price of new car and individual income was x)
|
|
|
Today (gap between avg price of new car and individual income is y)
Stimulus: x < y
In other words, the gap has increased (sorry for the math, but LR is word math so like)
Conclusion: individuals are spending larger amounts of their income buying a new car than 25 years ago
(A) - This does not affect the conclusion whatsoever if we are talking about individuals (which we are as we see in the conclusion). So what if the income of the household is now closer in amount to the price of a new car? Individual income is not and this is what the stimulus is concerned about NOT household income.
(B) - This is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.
(C) - This kind of restates the stimulus in a way. If inflation increased both the price of new cars and income, and considering this income got much lower, then it is just saying that the gap between avg price of new car and individual income got larger. This has no effect on the argument that this increase in gap leads to the author concluding that individuals are spending larger amounts of their income. (Even if we force it, I’d say this strengthens rather than weakens)
(D) - Population is so entirely irrelevant. More people are buying new cars! Ok, but this does nothing to the argument at hand.
(E) - This weakens the argument. Let’s say a household (like (A)) buys a car and everyone chips in (in other words, it is not a sale to individuals but rather a sale to a group) about 25% of their income. This could very much mean that the amount each person chipped in could have been a smaller amount relative to their income than 25 years ago. So if this AC is true, then this provides a scenario where the conclusion is not true.