When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more of their money, but when nuclear-arms testing increased, people tended to spend more of their money. The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.
The argument above assumes that
1) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years
2) most people supported the development of nuclear arms
3) people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear-arms testing being done
4) the people who saved the most money when nuclear-arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations
5) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases
KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.