PrepTest 122

Incorrect. This answer points out that economic improvement can lead to an increase in jobs and thus spending, but Terry's argument is about an increase in spending resulting in an improvement in the economy—the reverse relationship. As such, this answer starts where Terry's argument ends and is thus out of scope.

Incorrect. This doesn't change the fact that people without money can't spend money, even if they're hopeful for the future, so it doesn't undermine the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
R: The economy hurting results in job loss results in a spending decline results in more job losses results in a worse economy results in a drop in prices results in an increase in spending results in an improved economy.

T: If people have no job/money, they can't spend more, so a drop in prices can't result in an improved economy.

Answer Anticipation:
Robin's argument is a long causal chain showing that the economy hurting will eventually fix itself—but the question stem asks us about a flaw in Terry's argument, so we can ignore Robin's statements outside of any reference to it that Terry makes.

While Terry's argument overlaps with Robin's, it doesn't refer back to it, so we can treat his argument as self—contained.

Terry establishes a conditional relationship—if people don't have jobs or money, they can't spend more, so even cheaper prices won't result in an improved economy because people won't be able to afford those cheaper prices.

When someone attempts to apply a conditional statement to a specific situation, it's important to check to see if the sufficient condition is established. Here, Terry's sufficient condition is that people have no jobs and money. However, while a bad economy will lead to job loss, that doesn't mean that everyone loses their job. The people who keep their jobs may be the ones taking advantage of the lower prices, thus injecting money into the economy and improving it. Terry ignores this group when considering the impact of lower prices on the economy, and so the correct answer will likely point this out.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is about the group that Terry overlooks—those who still have jobs and money in an economic downturn. If this group can buy things when prices collapse, then they could cause the economy to turn around, and Terry's argument is undermined.

Key Takeaway:
When a conditional statement applied to a specific situation serves as the basis for a conclusion, make sure that the sufficient condition was met by the situation! Frequently, it won't be—and that gap is exploited by the correct answer.

Incorrect. Terry's argument already takes this into account (other than basic necessities"), so it can't undermine his argument.

Incorrect. If anything, this aligns with Terry's argument that price collapses won't result in increased spending and thus a fixed economy.