PT101.S3.Q18 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · 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

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

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

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The argument concludes that people in a certain region who have jobs are not reducing their consumer spending in response to widespread layoffs in the area. The argument supports this with the claim that these people with jobs are not saving more money than usual.

The argument assumes that if the people in question were reducing their consumer purchases, then they would save more money. In other words, that there isn’t some third way that people might be spending their money, leading them to reduce consumption while also not saving more.

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.

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.

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.

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 trying to infer information about sales of goods from statistics about saving habits. Whether actual statistics about sales of goods exist is irrelevant to that inference.

PrepTest 101 - Section 3 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action