understanding the stimulus

@Julie-V, If you've read it once and don't understand what's going on, I recommend re-reading it. In general, though, it's best to make sure that you're understanding what's going on after each sentence you read. If you read the first sentence and don't get it, re-read it. Answering the question correctly will be extremely difficult if you don't know what's going on in the stimulus. Also, perhaps try slowing down a bit while you're reading so that you can absorb what's in the stimulus more easily. Give yourself some time to internalize and process what you're reading, and that should help. Does this make sense? Now, let's look at this question. We're told that the Scorpio Miser costs more than the standard Scorpio car, but it is more fuel-efficient. Right now, you would need to drive the Miser 60,000 more miles to break even at that cost difference. However, if fuel prices went down, you'd have to drive it fewer miles to get to the break-even point. Do you see the problem here? If the fuel prices go down, then you aren't saving as much money as compared to the less efficient standard Scorpio car. Thus, the argument actually has things backward. If fuel prices were to go down, you would actually have to drive more miles before getting to the break-even point. (C) says, "With the Roadmaker, a crew can repave a mile of decayed road in less time than with the competing model, which is, however, much less expensive. Reduced staffing levels made possible by the Roadmaker eventually compensate for its higher price. Therefore, the Roadmaker is especially advantageous where average wages are low" If you do not have to pay workers as much, then it makes less sense to buy the Roadmaker, since you will be saving less. However, the argument in (C) actually states the opposite, which means it has the same type of flaw as the one we found in the stimulus. Thus, (C) is the correct answer choice. Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!