Reading comp PrepTest 126 · Section 2 · Question 22

Passage

Questions 22-27  .        In economics, the term "speculative bubble"  . refers to a large upward move in an asset's Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Social Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • "Speculative bubble" defined (price increase caused by confidence, not potential earnings); Mackay and Garber's debate on whether it applies to the 1600s Dutch tulip market
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Definition of a "speculative bubble": A sharp price increase that's caused by people's untested confidence in others' willingness to pay a high price, not by the potential earnings the item could derive (first sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
      • In a speculative bubble, people's confidence that others will be willing to pay a higher price for an item causes the item's price to go up; the loss of that confidence causes the price to decrease dramatically (first and second sentences)
    • Example of a speculative bubble, according to Mackay:
      • The 1600s Dutch tulip market (third sentence)
    • Garber's view:
      • There is no evidence that tulips were a speculative bubble (last sentence)
    • author's attitude: "mere speculation" (first sentence); "dramatic decline" (second sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Background/Mackay's view on Dutch tulip market (rare varieties sold for a lot until 1637, when prices suddenly collapsed)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Example of a rare Dutch tulip variety that commanded a high price, according to the author:
      • Semper Augustus bulb that sold for today's equivalent of $11,000 in 1999 (second sentence)
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • While rare varieties of bulbs sold for a lot of money, common bulb varieties sold for very little (second and third sentences)
    • Mackay's view:
      • The rapid rise in the price of rare bulbs attracted speculators to the Dutch tulip market, and prices increased even more until 1637, when the bubble burst (fourth and fifth sentences)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Garber's argument (original bulb's price is justified due to earnings from all the bulbs created by the original)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Garber's view:
      • The details from Mackay's argument are true (first sentence)
      • But the price commanded by the original bulb can be explained by standard pricing patterns (second and third sentence)
      • The newly developed and fashionable original bulbs sell for a lot of money because you can sell a lot of their descendants to earn a return on your initial investment, even the bulbs' price drops as more of those descendants become available (fourth through seventh sentences)
      • Therefore, the Dutch tulip market is not an example of a speculative bubble (last sentence)

Main Point: While Mackay argues that the seventeenth-century Dutch tulip market is an example of a speculative bubble, Garber believes that it isn't a bubble and can be explained by standard pricing patterns.

Meta-Structure?

Describing a Debate: This passage uses a Describing a Debate Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author describes two sides of a debate without taking a side or attempting to reconcile the two sides. (If the author takes a side or attempts to resolve the debate, the passage is better understood as a "Resolving a Debate" passage.) That describes this passage. The author presents two opinions on the Dutch tulip market in the seventeenth century: Mackay's classic view and Garber's challenge to Mackay's view.

In a Describing a Debate passage, the main point is a description of both sides of the debate (or simply an assertion that there is a debate). To express the main point, we can look for whether the author provides a conclusion that summarizes both sides of the debate. The author provides such a summary in the last two sentences of the first paragraph, so we can use those sentences for any question on which we need to consider the main point. Alternatively, we can summarize both sides ourselves. We condensed that summary into one sentence and filled in some details about Garber's view in our anticipated main point.

*You could also call this a Phenomenon/Explanation passage (or, relatedly, a Question/Answer passage) because the author lists two explanations (or answers) to a phenomenon that occurred in the Dutch tulip market in the seventeenth century. Or, since the author simply describes two viewpoints without offering their own opinions, we could call this a Reporting a Viewpoint passage.

Last Thoughts?

Since the author didn't advance an argument in the passage, we'll get fewer Major Point and Tone questions than usual. Expect several Minor Point and Application questions about the Dutch tulip market and Mackay and Garber's view, as well as the typical Argument Structure question.

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Reiterate the main point as we summarized it after reading through the passage, then find the answer that best matches it

Answer Anticipation

As discussed in the Meta-Structure section above, this passage utilizes a Describing a Debate Meta-Structure. In such a Meta-Structure, the main point is generally a description of both sides of the debate (or simply an assertion that there is a debate). To express the main point, we can look for whether the author provides a conclusion summarizing both sides of the debate. The author provides such a summary in the last two sentences of the first paragraph, so we can use those sentences to assess the answer choices. Alternatively, we can summarize both sides ourselves. We condensed that summary into one sentence and filled in some details about Garber's view in our anticipated main point: "While Mackay argues that the seventeenth-century Dutch tulip market is an example of a speculative bubble, Garber believes that it isn't a bubble and can be explained by standard pricing patterns."Let's look for an answer choice that matches those ideas.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The seventeenth–century Dutch tulip Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this contain the same ideas as the last two sentences in the first paragraph or our anticipated main point?

    Nope. We can eliminate this as soon as we read "mistakenly." The author never took sides, so no view could be said to be correct or mistaken. Some experienced test-takers may have even eliminated this upon reading "widely," which cannot accurately describe the passage since only one economist is listed for believing in each view. Just because Mackay's work is a classic doesn't mean that it's widely believed. Either way, we can cross off (A).

  2. B
    Mackay did not accurately Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this contain the same ideas as the last two sentences in the first paragraph or our anticipated main point?

    No. The author never weighs in on whether Mackay was correct or not, so we can hop out of this answer after reading "did not accurately."

  3. C
    A speculative bubble occurs Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this contain the same ideas as the last two sentences in the first paragraph or our anticipated main point?

    Negative. This answer addresses only the definition of a speculative bubble, not the debate over whether the Dutch tulip market counts as one. Plus, it doesn't even correctly define a speculative bubble — the prices have to be driven by speculation.

  4. D
    Garber argues that Mackay's Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Does this contain the same ideas as the last two sentences in the first paragraph or our anticipated main point?

    Yes! This captures the two sides of the debate over whether the Dutch tulip market counts as a speculative bubble. The author never takes sides, simply presenting their views. This answer reflects the central debate without an authorial opinion on the matter, so it's the correct answer. We can confidently select (D) and advance to the following question.

  5. E
    A tulip bulb can Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this contain the same ideas as the last two sentences in the first paragraph or our anticipated main point?

    No. This answer reflects Garber's view on why the Dutch tulip market can be explained by economic fundamentals instead of as a speculative bubble. Since it misses the debate over whether the case counts as a bubble, this answer isn't broad enough in scope to be the main point.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 10%
  2. B 2%
  3. C 4%
  4. D Credited 84%
  5. E 0%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

  • Why C? 1 reply

    Started by farnoushsalimian