PrepTest 101

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Background - A region has seen a lot of layoffs
Counterclaim - Those who still have jobs are spending less

But these people aren't saving more, so they can't be spending less.

Answer Anticipation:
First, let's note that this is a Methods of Reasoning question. There is a flaw in the stimulus—and we're asked about it in the next question, so there's no reason not to think about it as we're tackling this one—but we should focus on how the argument works, not what it does wrong.

Here, the argument provides some background—a given region has seen a lot of layoffs. From this, a counterpoint is made—that people who still have their jobs are spending less as if they were in economic trouble. (We know it's a counterpoint because it's introduced as what is being "said," referring to an argument made by others.)

The argument itself pivots away from this. It brings up that these individuals are saving as much as they always have, so the opposing point must be wrong—these individuals can't be spending less.

As we stated, we don't need to analyze the logic here, but we will need to analyze it in the next question. Since we've simplified the argument, and since there isn't much to it, we can probably summarize the flaw and method of reasoning at the same time.

Here, the argument assumes that if people were spending less while still having jobs, they'd save more. However, that ignores other things that these individuals might be doing with their money (e.g., giving it to family members who are struggling).

So for this question, we should look for an answer that conveys the idea that it rules out one possibility (people are saving more) in order to disprove a theory about how people are spending their money (they're spending less).

Answer Explanation:
The argument assumes that if people were spending less, then they'd save more. But since that expected outcome—saving more—didn't happen, it concludes that they're not spending less. This answer reflects the logic of the argument, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
For a two-question stimulus, if the two question types are related, start thinking about them at the same time. For here, the method of reasoning used is very related to the flawed method of reasoning used, so we thought about both to set ourselves up to tackle the next question, which is going to play off of the assumption in the argument.

Incorrect. The argument sets up spending and saving as two opposed possibilities—people can't both save and spend the same money. This answer, however, describes an argument that brings up two consequences that would both happen from a given behavior—in other words, behavior X leads to both Y and Z, not either Y or Z but not both. As such, this answer doesn't describe the argument.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of motive or harmful economic behavior, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Very tempting! The argument does assume that two alternatives (spend; save) exhaust all plausible possibilities, but it doesn't use that to conclude that one occurred and the other didn't. It uses the fact that one didn't occur to conclude that the other did. A subtle difference, but a difference that invalidates this answer.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't bring up ambiguous evidence—it definitively states that there has been no unusual increase in savings.