Logical reasoning PrepTest 147 · Section 1 · Question 22

Incorrect. This answer can look great at first glance because it brings up a dispute with the opposing point. But let's say that we characterize the Economists's argument as including an explanation. That explanation is for why price gouging is efficient. In order for this answer to be correct, then, the Advocate would have to bring up an alternative explanation for how price gouging is efficient. Since it doesn't do that, this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. In general, in passages with an opposing point, the author's view of the opposing point is the main point. Here, the Advocate never explicitly states that the opposing point is wrong, but it's implied, and so the statement in question isn't really the opposing point. Additionally, that final statement is more of a concluding statement than the pivot statement, meaning it's not even the main point of the statements included in the stimulus. Tempting since it is a conclusion, but ultimately wrong.

Incorrect. This answer describes a statement that's a part of the opposing point, but it comes after a pivot ("But") and contradicts a part of that argument, so this can be eliminated.

Incorrect. It is a general principle, but the argument relies on it—it's not a part of the opposing point.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Economists Ð Price gouging is efficient because goods go to those who need them most
CA Ð In the real world, some people who need things don't have money, so price gouging gives goods to the rich, not those who need them.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a tricky one. The argument itself is complicated, with some economic terminology thrown in and a structure that's hard to understand.

However, let's start with what is clear—the argument starts with an opposing point. Economists believe that price gouging is efficient, getting goods to the people who need them the most.

The Advocate, however, pivots away from that idea ("But"), and that pivot is to the statement in question. This statement calls into question an important part of the Economists's reasoning—that willingness to pay shows need. Is there support for this pivot? Yep—some people have less money than others, and so we can't determine need just by willingness to pay, as some people might be priced out. So the statement in question is a conclusion that's meant to deny the truth of a part of the opposing argument.

Is it the main point of the argument, or is it an intermediate conclusion? Looking at the last sentence, it makes a lot more sense that the pivot statement (statement in question) supports it than the other way around. As a result of willingness to pay not being proportional to need because some people have more money than others, it is therefore true that price increases get goods to the rich, not those who need it most.

So the statement in question is an intermediate conclusion meant to call a part of an opposing point into question. That's quite a mouthful, so let's see how the correct answer phrases it!

Answer Explanation:
This is a complicated answer choice to understand, but let's break it down. Does it deny a claim? Yes, it does—it calls into question a part of the opposing point. What claim does it deny? That willingness to pay is proportional to need. Does the opposing point explicitly state that? Nope, it implies that it's true based on the reasoning for why price gouging is efficient, so it is an assumption. Is the denied claim a part of the reasoning that the Advocate rejects—i.e., the opposing point? Yep. This answer has a lot of abstraction to it, but working through it piece-by-piece we can see that it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
You should be a bit scared by Argument Structure questions that show up this late in the section—they're going to be difficult. And most of the time, the difficulty comes from multiple abstract answers that are hard to understand but sound correct. Go slowly through them, match up the pieces of the answer to the pieces in the argument, and see which answer lines up correctly.