Question #5318

Answer D

Started by Raheel · started 2024-06-24 20:37 · last activity 2024-06-29 15:08 · 3 replies

I had the right answer anticipation, but I incorrectly applied it to D. Why wouldn't the surplus before 1973 create enough reason to believe that if there was a surplus then, it had gone down since then?

Replies

  1. Emil-Kunkin · 2024-06-25 13:05

    I don't really see how there having been a surplus in the last weakens the argument. We are told that there was a shortage in 73, and the author tries to then elaborate on the cause of the shortage. To attack this we need to think about the causality, and whether there was a surplus, equilibrium or even a small shortage Prior to 73 has little to do with causality. May I ask what your anticipation was that led you to D?

  2. Raheel · 2024-06-27 22:10

    Shortage of oil, and surplus prior to 1983 led to an assumption that the amount of oil went down since then

  3. Emil-Kunkin · 2024-06-29 15:08

    Hm, I don't think that anticipation really gets at what is wrong with the argument. The argument is flawed because the authors only support for the claim the shortage was fake is the fact that parties benefitted from it. This isn't actual support, just speculation that fails to address whether the shortage was real at all.

Sign in to reply.