crejoc wrote:
Microeconomist: Usually,
the relationship between the price of a good and the demand for that product is negative: when the price goes up, the quantity demanded goes down, and vice versa. However, a dramatic increase in the price of basic foods, such as bread or milk, is likely to increase rather then decrease their consumption among the low-income households. Since the consumption of these products is relatively stable, an increase in their price will simply lower the proportion of the household’s budget spent on other, more expensive food items, such as meat or fish.
In an effort to maintain the same calorie intake, the household will consume even more of the basic foods that typically remain a cheaper way to satisfy hunger even after an increase in their prices. In the argument above, which of the following statements best describes the role played by each portion in boldface?
A) The first is evidence that the microeconomist provides in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
B) The first is a generalization that the microeconomist accepts as true; the second is a consequence that follows from that generalization.
C) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the microeconomist predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.
D) The first acknowledges a consideration against the main conclusion of the microeconomist; the second is that conclusion.
E) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the microeconomist predicts will be repeated in the case at issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
OA :
Official Solution (Credit: Manhattan Prep)
The microeconomist begins his argument by describing the usual relationship between an increase in the price of a good and a decrease in the quantity demanded. Note the use of the word “usually” at the beginning of this premise, indicating that the suggested pattern of cause and effect typically holds. Thus, the first statement in boldface represents a generalization that the microeconomist accepts as accurate. The economist then goes on to conclude that for basic foods, however, the usual cause-and-effect relationship will not hold and an increase in their prices will increase rather than reduce the demand for these products on the part of the low-income households. To support this conclusion, the economist offers evidence explaining why the price increase may result in greater consumption of basic foods. Therefore, the second statement in boldface represents evidence that supports the main conclusion of the economist.
(A) This answer choice incorrectly states that the first portion supports rather than weighs against that economist’s prediction. In addition, this answer choice incorrectly states that the second portion in boldface represents the economist’s prediction rather than the evidence supporting that prediction.
(B) This answer choice correctly describes the role of the first portion but mistakenly states that the second part in boldface follows from this generalization. The second statement in boldface presents evidence that supports the opposite effect from that described in the first portion. Specifically, the economist claims that the price increase will increase rather than reduce the consumption of basic foods.
(C) CORRECT. This answer choice correctly identifies the role of each of the two parts in boldface. The first part represents the generalization that is typically accurate but will not be repeated in the case at issue. The second portion presents evidence in support of the economist’s prediction.
(D) This answer choice correctly describes the role of the first statement but incorrectly states that the second statement represents the conclusion rather than evidence supporting that conclusion. Remember, the conclusion of the economist is that the price increase will increase rather than reduce the demand for basic foods on the part of the low-income households.
(E) This answer choice incorrectly states that the first statement will be repeated in the case at issue. Remember, the economist argues that the usual pattern will not hold this time. The second statement is correctly described as acknowledging a circumstance in which the usual pattern will not hold.
close
Updated on: 21 Sep 2018, 00:00
45%
(medium)
32%
(02:17)
wrong 
