Step 1: Identify the Argument's Causal ChainThe argument warns that direct donations will cause:
Donations → Flood market → Prices drop → Local producers undercut → Producers fail → More aid dependenceTo counter this, we need to
BREAK a link in this chain.
Step 2: Analyze the Answers(A) Cash aid is
30-50% more expensive for donor countries...
→ Talks about cost to
DONORS, not impact on Sewell
→ Actually
supports direct donations (cheaper for donors!)
→
Doesn't address the concern ✗
(B) Hospitals are
nationalized, so extra supplies won't depress official prices, and government can sell donations to fund reconstruction.
→
KEY: Nationalized = Government controls prices→ Prices won't drop regardless of supply
→ Local producers protected
→
BONUS: Government gains cash for reconstruction
→
Breaks the causal chain! ✓
(C) People will use saved money for other necessities...
→ Confirms supplies are given free
→ Free supplies
would still depress prices
→
Doesn't counter the concern ✗
(D) Local producers have produced less due to disruptions...
→ Weak: "Not much local production to hurt anyway"
→ Doesn't address price depression
→ Temporary situation, not structural solution
→
Weak at best ✗
(E) Poorest live in villages without hospitals...
→ This
criticizes the donation system
→ Actually argues
AGAINST direct donations
→
Wrong direction entirely ✗
Step 3: Why B is the Strongest CounterThe original argument assumes a
free market where:
Supply ↑ → Prices ↓ → Local producers hurt
B says:
"That's not how Sewell works!"In a
nationalized system:
• Government sets official prices
• Prices don't drop just because supply increases
• Local producers compete at stable official prices
•
The mechanism that causes harm CANNOT operateKey Takeaway:For
counter-argument questions:
• Identify the causal chain
• Find the answer that
breaks a link in that chain
• B attacks the mechanism: "Prices will drop" →
NO, government controls prices
Answer: B