PrepTest 118

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
People aren't satisfied by the thought of their stuff wearing out, so economists' focus on consumption to measure economic well-being is preventing true understanding.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a very dense two sentences! However, the second sentence is replete with examples of consumption not telling the whole story of economic well-being, so they must be premises supporting that first sentence. That first sentence also talks about how something is getting in the way of "true" understanding, which is the type of opinion language that frequently shows up in the conclusion. So the author here is arguing that an obsessive focus on consumption is preventing a true understanding of economic well-being, and the correct answer should reflect that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the conclusion of the argument as clarified by the examples. While the elements in question are certainly related to economics (they all deal in value), the author argues that focusing obsessively on that consumption hides the "true nature" of economic well-being. Therefore, there must be more to economic well-being than consumption—as this answer states.

Key Takeaway:
This is quite a question #1! When you run into something like this, stop trying to figure out the technical aspects of the economic discussion and instead focus on the logic and language. Stating that an obsession hides the "true nature" of something is the type of statement that is almost always a conclusion, and a list of examples is almost always support for a conclusion. Relying on those trends makes it a lot easier to understand this argument and get to the correct answer, which reflects the examples and conclusion without getting too in the economic weeds.

Incorrect. While the argument raises several types of consumption that don't lead to satisfaction, it never states or implies anything as strong as this answer—that satisfaction is possible without consumption. Even if that is implied, it's not related to the conclusion about consumption not being a complete measure of economic well-being.

Incorrect. The author seems to believe that consumption can be measured—things like automobile depreciation and gas being replaced is quantifiable. However, these measurements don't tell the whole story—they prevent "true" understanding.

Incorrect. While the stimulus does discuss products wearing out, it doesn't discuss "early obsolescence," and that idea is distinct from regular wear and tear, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument puts forward consumption as an inadequate measure of economic well-being, but it doesn't then move on to suggest that satisfaction can replace it—especially since it doesn't state that satisfaction is itself quantifiable.