+1 D
I had done a similar question before with almost the same answer choices, so this one was easy for me. Also this question is tagged as "must be true", but I think it is a "resolve a paradox" type of question. The correct answer choices of "must be true" questions cannot bring in new information and are in most of the cases a simple paraphrase of one or more of the premises themselves.
Paradox in the Argument: Proportion of loan repaid dropped sharply in the first year,
but returned to normal levels in the second year.
Correct answer choice will resolve the paradox by explaining the "but" in the argument.
guygmat wrote:
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the change in credit repayment reported?
A)The total dollar amount of the loans decreased slightly between the first year and the second.
irrelevant-doesn't explain why the proportion of loans repaid returned to normal levels, total amount of loans may have dropped and the proportion of loans returned may still have remained the same.
B)New restrictions on the banking industry instituted since the economic downturn began have limited the number of loans banks can make to troubled borrowers.
if you followed why Option A is wrong, this option can easily be seen as irrelevant, and because of the same reasons. Even if the total amount of loans dropped, the proportion of loans repaid could remain the same. An increase or decrease in number doesn't guarantee a similar increase or decrease in proportion (or percentage). If, however, this option stated that banks are diverting loans from troubled retailers to well-off retailers, then this option might have been a contender.
C)The largest furniture chain in Crescent City slashed prices in the second year in order to stimulate sales.
out of scope, we are talking about all furniture retailers, not just one or the biggest player. Also we do not know whether the stimulated sales were sufficient to repay the loans
D)Almost all of the most financially troubled furniture retailers went out of business at the end of the first year of the economic downturn.
correct, if most of the troubled retailers who had difficulty in repaying loans went out of business at the end of the first year, in the second year only those those retailers remained who could repay the loans, thus increasing the proportion of loans repaid and explaining the paradox
E)Between the first and second years of the recession, wholesalers were forced to significantly raise the prices they charged to retailers.
irrelevant, we are concerned about retailers and not wholesalers. And also if this option were true, retailers would be left more troubled by the rise in prices, thus making the paradox more grave.