In order to maintain a high

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   a nation that fails to invest in its infrastructure need not experience any resulting decline in

   Out of Scope: declining standard of living Saying, "Something that is X need not be Y" is an objection to an author who said, "Bob is X. Thus, Bob must be Y." This author didn't argue that "if you've failed to invest in infrastructure then you must be experiencing a decline in standard of living". He is thinking that, "if you failed to invest in infrastructure, then you would not have a rising standard of living." "Not having a rising standard of living" isn't the same as having a declining standard of living. A country might just have a steady standard of living.

   5%
2. B

   Out of Scope: able to invest1% picked this

   many nations are unable to make the needed investments

   Saying, "many X's are unable to Y" would only be an objection to an author who thinks, "almost all X's are able to Y". Did this author think that "almost all nations are able to make needed investments in infrastructure"? Nope. None of the conversation is about whether nations are able to make investments. The author isn't announcing whether nations are commonly or rarely able to make such investments. She's only claiming that when you see a nation with a rising standard of living, then you can assume that that nation was able to invest heavily.

   1%
3. C

   Didn't Fail to Consider3% picked this

   the rise in a nation’s standard of living that is prompted by investment in its infrastructure may take

   The author concedes the potential for a gradual timeline by saying, "Major investment will, over time, reward a nation with a rise in standard of living."

   3%
4. D

   Correct89% picked this

   a rise in a nation’s standard of living need not be the result of major

   Why this is right

   Saying, "X need not be the result of Y" would be an objection to an author who thinks "when X happens, it must be because of Y". Did this author think that when "rise in standard of living" happens, it must be because of "major investments in infrastructure"? Yup! That's basically what the conclusion says: "If a rise in standard of living happens, then you can safely assume that major investment in infrastructure happened." This answer is pointing out the objection we made that a nation's standard of living could be on the rise for many, many reasons. Maybe it's infrastructure investment. Maybe it's environmental cleanup. Maybe it's a boost to the social welfare offered. Hence, seeing a nation with a rising standard of living wouldn't allow us to assume that this was a result of infrastructure investment.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   89%
5. E

   Out of Scope: diverting resources2% picked this

   nations often experience short-term crises that require that resources be diverted to purposes other than the maintenance

   Saying, "X's often have to do Y" would only be an objection to an author who was thinking "X's almost never have to do Y". Was our author thinking that "nations almost never experience short-term crises that require diverting resources away from infrastructure improvements"? Heck no. That's getting extremely specific about a lot of stuff the author never even talked about. This answer feels a lot like (B). It's trying to object to the author by saying, "Hey, author -- sometimes nations aren't able to invest in infrastructure." Cool. He never said they were. He's only saying if you see a nation with a rising standard of living, then you know that that nation was able to invest in infrastructure.

   2%