Question
The downturn in the economy last year has prompted many companies to make widely publicized layoffs, resulting in thousands of lost jobs. Economists predicted that these layoffs would cause people generally to cut back on their discretionary spending, even if their jobs were secure, in anticipation of coming hard times. However, this prediction has not come to pass, since there has been no increase in the amount of money set aside by the general public in savings accounts.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Answer: Option B
:
B
The conclusion of the argument is that the prediction of decreased consumer spending has not come to pass. The evidence for this is that there has been no corresponding increase in the amount of money set aside in savings accounts by the general public. This question asks us to find an assumption on which this argument is based. The author assumes that the mere fact that people generally have not been adding more money to their savings accounts means they have not cut down on their discretionary purchases (i.e., non-essential items). In order for this to be valid, we must assume that a savings account is the only mechanism by which someone would save any extra money when reducing discretionary spending.
(A) The state of the economy in the last few months has no bearing on the claim that a lack of extra money deposited in consumer savings accounts is evidence that consumer spending has not decreased.
(B) CORRECT. If there was an alternate explanation for the lack of increase in savings accounts, the claim that the decrease in spending has not taken place would be greatly weakened. This assumption guarantees us that at least one other possible explanation for the lack of increase in savings (i.e. an increase in stocks, certificates of deposit, or other savings vehicles) is NOT true.
(C) Assuming that salaries decreased would actually weaken this argument. If salaries decreased, that may explain the decrease in the amount of money being put aside in savings without necessarily implying a decrease in spending. People could be making less, spending the same, and therefore saving less.
(D) The argument says the prediction was made "even [for those whose] jobs were secure." People who find other employment, therefore, would still fall under the economists' prediction and would, if the prediction were true, be expected to cut discretionary spending and save more money.
Was this answer helpful ?
:
B
The conclusion of the argument is that the prediction of decreased consumer spending has not come to pass. The evidence for this is that there has been no corresponding increase in the amount of money set aside in savings accounts by the general public. This question asks us to find an assumption on which this argument is based. The author assumes that the mere fact that people generally have not been adding more money to their savings accounts means they have not cut down on their discretionary purchases (i.e., non-essential items). In order for this to be valid, we must assume that a savings account is the only mechanism by which someone would save any extra money when reducing discretionary spending.
(A) The state of the economy in the last few months has no bearing on the claim that a lack of extra money deposited in consumer savings accounts is evidence that consumer spending has not decreased.
(B) CORRECT. If there was an alternate explanation for the lack of increase in savings accounts, the claim that the decrease in spending has not taken place would be greatly weakened. This assumption guarantees us that at least one other possible explanation for the lack of increase in savings (i.e. an increase in stocks, certificates of deposit, or other savings vehicles) is NOT true.
(C) Assuming that salaries decreased would actually weaken this argument. If salaries decreased, that may explain the decrease in the amount of money being put aside in savings without necessarily implying a decrease in spending. People could be making less, spending the same, and therefore saving less.
(D) The argument says the prediction was made "even [for those whose] jobs were secure." People who find other employment, therefore, would still fall under the economists' prediction and would, if the prediction were true, be expected to cut discretionary spending and save more money.
Was this answer helpful ?
More Questions on This Topic :
Latest Videos
Latest Test Papers
Submit Solution