请教 lsat 21 session 3 -17/18

ios

Questions 17-18
The widespread staff reductions in a certain region’s economy are said to be causing people who still have their jobs to cut back on new purchases as though they, too, had become economically distressed. Clearly, however, actual spending by such people is undiminished, because there has been no unusual increase in the amount of money held by those people in savings accounts.
18.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
(A) If people in the region who continue to be employed have debts, they are not now paying them off at an accelerated rate.
(B) People in the region who continue to be employed and who have relatives who have lost their jobs commonly assist those relatives financially.
(C) If people in the region who have lost jobs get new jobs, the new jobs generally pay less well than the ones they lost.
(D) People in the region who continue to be employed are pessimistic about their prospects for increasing their incomes.
(E) There exist no statistics about sales of goods in the region as a whole.

为什么选A，谢谢!

mindfree

First of all, understand the question and reasoning.

The conclusion is that the actuall spending (new purchases) was not cut back for those who are still employed. The premise (reason) is that their savings account showed no increase.

You can see there is a huge gap between the premise and the conclusion, because:
Amount in Saving Account = Balance + Deposit, which equals Earning - Spending.

I can think of some assumptions here: their salaries were not reduced (earning), or their normal investment income suffered due to the economy (earning), etc.

The Answer A is saying that the spending is not affected. If these people are paying off their debt faster (pay more every time), their spending might stay the same even though they save on new purchases.

valarie

以下是引用mindfree在2003-10-18 11:11:00的发言：
First of all, understand the question and reasoning.

The conclusion is that the actuall spending (new purchases) was not cut back for those who are still employed. The premise (reason) is that their savings account showed no increase.

You can see there is a huge gap between the premise and the conclusion, because:
Amount in Saving Account = Balance + Deposit, which equals Earning - Spending.

I can think of some assumptions here: their salaries were not reduced (earning), or their normal investment income suffered due to the economy (earning), etc.

The Answer A is saying that the spending is not affected. If these people are paying off their debt faster (pay more every time), their spending might stay the same even though they save on new purchases.

Very good explaination! I see. 前提： their saving didn't increase, - meaning they spent some money

假设: they didn't spend these money on paying off debts more quickly

结论： they used the money on other spendings such as purchase