According to economists, people’s

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: described as inadequate1% picked this

   It is described as inadequate evidence for the falsity of the

   It isn't described as anything, so that's reason enough to consider this answer inaccurate. The argument's conclusion is saying "there are exceptions to Rule X" and the claim we're looking at is an example of a data point that conforms to Rule X. If an author is trying to prove that "there are exceptions to Rule X", a data point that matches rule X isn't evidence for the conclusion's falsity. It's really just irrelevant. If we're trying to prove that there are exceptions, our argument has nothing to do with whether or not there are conforming examples.

   1%
2. B

   Out of Scope: described Opposite: exception3% picked this

   It is described as an exception to a generalization for which the

   It isn't described as anything, so that's reason enough to consider this answer inaccurate. The argument's conclusion is saying "there are exceptions to generalization X", but the claim we're looking at is an example of a data point that conforms to the generalization.

   3%
3. C

   Correct86% picked this

   It is used to illustrate the generalization that, according to the argument, does not hold

   Why this is right

   Is there a generalization that, according to the argument, does not hold in call cases? Yes, the economists' general rule is a generalization. And according to the author's conclusion, there are exceptions to it; it does not hold in all cases. Okay, was this 2nd claim used to illustrate the economists' general rule? Yes! It was the author conceding that some data points do match that rule.

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

   86%
4. D

   Out of Scope8% picked this

   It is the evidence that, according to the argument, led economists to embrace

   Out of Scope: led economists to embrace Is there something that, according to the argument, led economists to embrace a false hypothesis? No, the argument never tells us a story about what caused the economists to espouse a general rule that has exceptions (calling that a false hypothesis is also a big stretch)

   8%
5. E

   Wrong Role Out of Scope: modifying1% picked this

   It is cited as one of several reasons for modifying a general assumption

   Nothing in the argument ever talks about modifying any assumption or rule made by the economists. The author is only proving that exceptions to the rule do exist. That doesn't mean you have to get rid of the rule or modify the rule. We can tolerate the existence of exceptions and still find a rule worthwhile. This is just descriptively, neutrally saying exceptions exist. This answer is also going on the wrong track as soon as it says "one of several reasons". That makes it sound like this was a Premise, but it was more like an Opposing point than a Supporting one. This is a concession to the economists' rule, because it's highlighting a case in which the rule applies.

   1%