Consumer advocate: Economists reason

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: Alternate Explanation29% picked this

   It disputes one explanation in order to make way for an

   Is the author disputing an explanation? Yes, she's rebutting the economists. What are they trying to explain? They're trying to explain why price gouging is efficient. They say that it's efficient because it allocates goods to those who most need them. An alternate explanation would say something like, "That's not the reason price gouging is efficient. It's efficient because it encourages innovation for cheaper alternative products." What this rebuttal does is reject the plausibility of the economists' explanation. "It makes no sense to say that price gouging is efficient because it allocates goods to those most in need. The people buying these goods aren't the ones that most need them, they're just the ones that are affluent enough to pay the jacked up price."

   29%
2. B

   Wrong Role: overall23% picked this

   It is the overall conclusion of

   This claim isn't the Main Conclusion, because the main conclusion needs to be about price gouging, the launching pad for this whole conversation. We know this claim can't be the biggest conclusion, because the author's final sentence is supported by this claim. FINAL SENTENCE Price gouging will allocate goods to the people with the most money, not with the most need. why should we believe that? because ... - willingness to pay more is not proportional to more need why should we believe that? because ... - in the real world, some people just can't pay what others can

   23%
3. C

   Wrong Role: disputed5% picked this

   It is a component of reasoning disputed in

   This is one of the author's conclusions. She isn't disputing it. It isn't a component of something she's disputing. It is a component of the body of evidence she is using to dispute the economists.

   5%
4. D

   Wrong Role2% picked this

   It is a general principle whose validity the

   Just like (C), the author isn't disputing this claim. The author isn't questioning the validity of this claim. This claim is one of the author's conclusions. This claim is questioning the validity of a general principle cited by the economists. They cited a general principle, willingness to pay more shows that they really need those goods The claim we're being asked about is our author questioning the validity of the economists' principle (it's even stronger than questioning the validity -- our claim is the author asserting the invalidity of the economists' principle).

   2%
5. E

   Correct41% picked this

   It denies a claim that the argument takes to be assumed in the reasoning

   Why this is right

   Can we give them a slow golf clap for this answer? You just have to smile. Denies a claim assumed in the reasoning it rejects. When there are that many somersaults, it's usually easiest to work backwards. Did the author reject some reasoning? Yes, she rejected the economists' reasoning about price gouging. Was there some claim the economists were assuming? Yes, they were assuming that "willingness to pay more shows that people really need those goods more". It the claim we're being asked about denying that assumption? Yes, it's saying, "Nuh-uh. Willingness to pay is not proportional to need". Okay, everything checks out, including our suspicions that they want our brains to melt at some point during the test.

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

   41%