Commerce Secretary: Over the past year, our nation’s economy grew at a

Hi Vyshak.

Nice job eliminating all of the trap answers.

The negation of "Not all of the nation's economic growth will result from" is not "No economic growth will result from".

It is "All of the nation's economic growth will result from".

So here is the entire answer choice negated.

C Negated: All of the nation's economic growth will result from people's selling to each other THINGS THAT THEY DON'T NEED.

If that were true, the conclusion of the argument would be invalid, because the commerce secretary's argument is that through economic growth people's material NEEDS will be increasingly met.

great job from Vyshak in eliminating all of the trap answers. but somehow im stuck between C/E even after attempting 2 times.

Both C and E are some sort of twisted negative sort of statements.

I'm not convinced with

I believe the gist of the argument is "strong economic growth will favor the material needs of our nation's citizens being met."
Where the growth results from need not be assumed I guess.
selling sth you dont need cannot hurt your needs. I mean if I sell my IPHONE(luxury not a need) it does not mean that my needs are not met.
Please explain

Hi. I have edited C to make more clear its point.

The point that what the growth results from does indeed matter, and this is a real world issue actually.

The commerce secretary is arguing that through economic growth people's needs will be increasingly met. The issue is that if the growth comes from people selling to each other unneeded products and services, then no more needs will be filled.

For example, let's say that needs are food, clothing, and shelter. If economic growth were to result from increased production of only televisions and yachts, then even though the economy would be bigger, people's needs for food, clothing, and shelter would still not be met.

In order for people's needs to be met, economic growth must come from people selling to each other things that people need.

So the commerce secretary is assuming that the not all of the economic growth will result from people's selling to each other products and services that nobody needs, and the edited version of C expresses that point more clearly than did the previous version.

A. As the nation's economy grows, the citizens who are the least financially secure will be increasingly able to move to high paying jobs. access to service could be due to lower prices. OFS

B. In at least some future years, the nation's rate of economic growth will be comparable to that seen in the past two years. argument makes if/then claim and does not assumes this. OFS

C. Not all of the nation's economic growth will result from people's selling to each other unneeded products and services. if growth itself is superficially inflated then argument will fail. thus, it is an assumption

D. There will not be future years in which the rate of economic growth will be lower than the rate of population growth. OFS

E. Competition from businesses based in other nations will not hamper wage growth and drive down the prices of many products. OFS

This means that..if higher class people start selling their possessions ( which can be surplus) to lower class people then the total req of production will come down.So this assumption should be valid for the argument to sustain.

C. Not all of the nation's economic growth will result from people's selling to each other unneeded products and services.

to indicate that economic growth is REAL

Commerce Secretary: Over the past year, our nation’s economy grew at a record pace, making the year the second in a row with strong growth. Though, admittedly, many needs of our nation’s citizens are currently not being met, with each year of economic growth, citizens of our nation will have access to and be able to afford more products and services. So, as long as we have strong economic growth, the material needs of our nation's citizens will be increasingly met.

Which the following is an assumption upon which the Commerce Secretary’s argument depends?


A. As the nation's economy grows, the citizens who are the least financially secure will be increasingly able to move to high paying jobs.

B. In at least some future years, the nation's rate of economic growth will be comparable to that seen in the past two years.

C. Not all of the nation's economic growth will result from people's selling to each other unneeded products and services.

D. There will not be future years in which the rate of economic growth will be lower than the rate of population growth.

E. Competition from businesses based in other nations will not hamper wage growth and drive down the prices of many products.


negating the main point:
even if strong eco growth, the material needs will not be met.
given that a) past 2 years strong eco growth ,b) current yr, meets not yet met , c) increase in eco growth will increase the access to material needs

pre-think:
1. what if meeting the material needs -> increase in eco
2. what if the increase in eco-> significant increase in price of material
3. what if demand for the material is more than supply of material during eco growth perid

look at the options
A. As the nation's economy grows, the citizens who are the least financially secure will be increasingly able to move to high paying jobs.
even if salary of most financially secured guy increases, this doesnot imply material needs of peole will not be met.
hence irrelevant

B. In at least some future years, the nation's rate of economic growth will be comparable to that seen in the past two years.
even if the eco growth is not comparable to past 2 years it could be either very high eco growth or very low eco growth.
hence no concrete proof. hence not correct

C. Not all of the nation's economic growth will result from people's selling to each other unneeded products and services.
matches the pre-think. material needs generates eco growth. hence correct

D. There will not be future years in which the rate of economic growth will be lower than the rate of population growth.
even if rate of eco is less than rate of pop growth, the absolute number could be far more than absoulte num of pop
hence not concrete proof.

E. Competition from businesses based in other nations will not hamper wage growth and drive down the prices of many products.
if competition will hamper salary growth and drive down the price of product, then it would be still easy to buy. hence
it is opposite. hence incorrect

Gladiator59 In option E, or whenever there is a compounded statement and we have two options to negate, can we negate both parts of the statement like

Competition from businesses based in other nations will hamper wage growth and not drive down the prices of many products. ----> wage down prices same or increase ?

ShankSouljaBoi, in assumption-type questions I personally like to look out for the "gap" in reasoning and then try to plug it. Only when two options come painfully close to filling the gap ( or worse, two options seem identical) do I employ the technique of negation. This is due to the cumbersome process and also the fact that sometimes ( like you pointed out for (E) here) it is not straightforward.

Let us break down the argument -

Commerce Secretary: Over the past year, our nation’s economy grew at a record pace, making the year the second in a row with strong growth. Though, admittedly, many needs of our nation’s citizens are currently not being met, with each year of economic growth, citizens of our nation will have access to and be able to afford more products and services. So, as long as we have strong economic growth, the material needs of our nation's citizens will be increasingly met.

The argument ties up two independent happenings - 1) economic growth and 2) material needs of citizens being met by using the italicized general statement - citizens of our nation will have access to and be able to afford more products and services

We want to try and fill the gap in this jump of reasoning.

A. As the nation's economy grows, the citizens who are the least financially secure will be increasingly able to move to high paying jobs. Does not even touch the gap we are trying to fill - just paraphrases half of the italicized statements and adds irrelevant additional info ( high paying jobs)

B. In at least some future years, the nation's rate of economic growth will be comparable to that seen in the past two years. This does not fill the gap as the conclusion already presumes this - "as long as we have strong economic growth ..."

C. Not all of the nation's economic growth will result from people's selling to each other unneeded products and services. Perfect - negate this. All of the nation's economic growth will result from people's selling to each other unneeded products and services - wow, if that is the case then clearly the material needs will not be fulfilled as all of the growth is coming from uneeded products. A classic!

D. There will not be future years in which the rate of economic growth will be lower than the rate of population growth. Comparing growth rates is the furthest from the correct answer among all the options

E. Competition from businesses based in other nations will not hamper wage growth and drive down the prices of many products. TRAP - this brings in more outside info and conditions. How these two are related to economic growth and fulfillment of needs is not clear. This is out of scope and the knowledge of "gap" to be filled will make it crystal clear.

Hope this helps.

ARGUMENT
[con] as long as nation has strong eco-growth, then material needs of citizens will be met;
[prem] strong eco-growth gives citizens access to and afford more products and services;
[asum] continuing strong eco-growth -> citizens have more access to and afford products -> citizens needs will be met.

ASUMP
A. "eco grows, citizens least secure will be able to move to higher wages" but this doesn't mean they will afford more products, or that their needs will be met, or that this growth is enough, out;
B. "eco growth of at least some years will be similar to the current" but is this enough growth so that citizens' needs will be met? out;
D. "rate of eco growth will always be greater than or equal rate of pop growth" out of scope;
E. "comp wont hamper wage growth or drive down prices" but what if the country has reached the point where citizens' needs are met? then this would be irev;

Answer (C)

MartyTargetTestPrep sorry expert, I am confused by your explanation. You said “if the growth comes from people selling to each other unneeded products and services, then no more needs will be filled“, but I don’t think so. Although the seller sell his/her unneeded goods to others, the buyer’s need is fulfilled, cuz if the goods cannot fill the buyer’s need, the buyer will not buy the goods, right? Need your kindly help, thanks.

Hi Mavisdu1017.

The truth is that people do buy many things they don't need, and people even buy things they would be better off without.

For instance, companies advertise junky toys on television, and then kids beg their parents for the toys. After the toy is bought, it's used once or twice and then never used again. So, such toys are unneeded goods that people buy, and they are just one example of many.

Thus, it's the case that economic growth and meeting of needs often don't match up, since much of the growth comes from people selling to each other unneeded goods and services. One person sells unneeded things to another, and then someone else sells unneeded things to the first person, and there can be millions of people selling each other things that none of them really need.

So, we can see that, in concluding that economic growth will result in people's needs being increasingly met, the commerce secretary is assuming that not all of the growth will result from people's selling each other stuff that nobody needs.