REASONING 3

lihaolan

Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard as causing recession, was high preceding the recent recession, but so was the value of assets owned by households. Admittedly, if most of the assets were owned by quite affluent households, and most of the debt was owed by low-income households, high household debt levels could have been the cause of the recession despite high asset values: low-income households might have decreased spending in order to pay off debts while the quite affluent ones might simply have failed to increase spending. But, in fact, quite affluent people must have owed most of the household debt, since money is not lent to those without assets. Therefore, the real cause must lie elsewhere.
11. Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument?

(A) Prior to the recent recession, middle-income households owed enough debt that they had begun to decrease spending.

(B) The total value of the economy’s household debt is exceeded by the total value of assets held by households.

(C) Low-income households somewhat decreased their spending during the recent recession.

(D) During a recession the affluent usually borrow money only in order to purchase assets.

(E) Household debt is the category of debt least likely to affect the economy.
答案是A.

玛莎丁丁

This one is a little bit tricky. Let us analyze it in more details.

Household Indebtedness was high preceding the recession. It was regarded as a cause of the recession but the author refuted it by saying the following:
1. the theorists' claims:
"high debt high assets" allocated as: most assets was owned by the affluent, most debts was owned by the low-income
the affluent didn't increase spending , the low-income decreased spending
——>together, these caused the recession.
2. However, the fact is:
most debts was owned by the affluent
3. Therefore,
the theorist' suggestioin was flawed

the question asks us to find Flaw in the argument.

A is correct because it points out that except from the affluent and low-income, there exists middle-income, which was not taken into account by the argument.
B doesn't have anything to do with what we need here. we don't care whether the total debt is higher or lower than the assets. What we care is who owns the assets and debts and what impacts that have on their spending.
C supports the theorists' claim. merely restates one of the premises.
D is not the right answer since we don't care how the affluent spent their money.
E is not the right answer since even if it is least likely, it could be. and we are not to say that E points out a Flaw in the reasoning.

Did I make it clear for u?

lihaolan

i got it!!!thank you