Hi
Matthyrou,
Sure. The
core paradox is that, according to economic theory, when prices increase, demand should decrease. Veblen goods, however, behave in the opposite way: their demand
increases with higher prices. The second bolded statement ("Therefore, as the price increases, the demand also increases...")
resolves this paradox by clearly stating the counter-intuitive behavior of Veblen goods. It’s a concise restatement of the idea that
this class of luxury goods does not follow the typical rule, and instead has its own unique market behavior.
While the preceding sentence to the second boldface explains
why this happens (due to prestige), the second boldfaced statement ties it all together and serves as the
final resolution by confirming the result of this behavior. It completes the explanation of how Veblen goods
violate the general rule in the first boldfaced statement.
The marker word "Therefore,......." indicates a conclusion follows.
The prior sentence about prestige provides the
why, but the second bolded statement provides the
what—the final conclusion about Veblen goods' behavior in the marketplace.
I hope this helps.
Matthyrou
Hey, is it possible to have have more details for the second boldface, for it's a supporting conlusing supporting the first sentence and concluing the sentence just before the second boldface.
Krunaal
(A) Incorrect. The first bolded portion isn't evidence but a general economic rule. The second bolded portion isn't really the main conclusion but the description of how Veblen goods defy that rule.
(B) Incorrect. The author does not oppose the first statement. It is a general rule in economics that is true for most goods. The author is simply presenting an exception with Veblen goods.
(C) Incorrect. The first is a general rule, not a prediction. The second bolded part is not providing evidence but describing how Veblen goods behave differently.
(D) Correct. The first statement is a general rule of economics, and Veblen goods appear to violate this rule, creating a seeming paradox. The second statement resolves this by explaining how Veblen goods behave differently.
(E) Incorrect. There is no irony in the first statement. It's a factual rule of economics for most goods, not a hypothetical or ironic scenario.
Answer D.