PrepTest 101

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

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:
We just finished tackling a Methods of Reasoning question, and we absolutely should have thought about the flawed logic there since we knew this Strengthen with Necessary Premise question was being asked next.

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.

That 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). In ruling out one possibility and concluding another, the argument is assuming that there are only two options for how people spend their money (they either save or spend). Let's find an answer highlighting that Failure to Eliminate Alternatives

So for this question, we should look for an answer that brings up an assumption related to the idea that the argument 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). As such, we should keep our eyes peeled for alternative places for that money to go.

Answer Explanation:
This answer rules out an alternative to spending or saving—paying off debt. If the people who still have jobs are paying down their debts, then they could be failing to both save and spend, killing the argument. This answer is therefore a necessary premise of the argument.

Key Takeaway:
When a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question has an argument featuring a Failure to Eliminate Alternatives flaw, the argument is assuming that each of these alternatives isn't present in the given situation. Correct answers, therefore, will frequently eliminate at least one of these alternatives.

Incorrect. This answer establishes an alternative to spending or saving—helping out family members. Since this answer establishes an alternative instead of ruling one out, it weakens the argument and can't be a necessary premise.

Incorrect. First, the argument is about those who are still employed, not those who might be employed again. Second, even if we include these people in the "still employed" group, making less probably means they'd spend less, which would undermine the conclusion.

Incorrect. People who are pessimistic about making more money are likely to spend less and save more, so this answer cuts against the conclusion.

Incorrect. While this answer provides an alternative basis for drawing the conclusion, it's not necessary that alternative arguments don't exist for a given argument to work. There can be more than one valid argument reaching the same conclusion! Even if such statistics exist, it's still possible that analyzing savings is one means by which spending can be inferred.