Summary
The level and rate of growth of aggregate output are the most significant indicators of the viability of a nation’s economy. Unemployment and inflation rates are also important indicators. Some countries have viable economies even though they do not have very large populations. For example, Switzerland and Austria have viable economies, but only about seven million people. Israel, Ireland, Denmark, and Finland all have viable economies, but less than seven million people.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Having a very large population isn’t required to have a viable economy.
If the size of a country’s population is an indicator of the viability of a nation’s economy, it is not the most significant indicator.
If the size of a country’s population is an indicator of the viability of a nation’s economy, it is not the most significant indicator.
A
A nation’s economic viability is independent of the size of its population.
Unsupported. Although having a very large population isn’t required for a viable economy, that doesn’t imply that population size is completely independent of the viability of an economy. Maybe a population of one million, for example, is required for viability.
B
Having a population larger than seven million ensures that a nation will be economically viable.
Unsupported. We don’t have any evidence that every nation with more than seven million people is economically viable.
C
Economic viability does not require a population of at least seven million.
Strongly supported. We have several examples of countries with populations smaller than seven million that are nonetheless still economically viable.
D
A nation’s population is the most significant contributor to the level and rate of growth of aggregate output.
Unsupported. We are not told what are the most important contributors to the level and rate of growth of aggregate output.
E
A nation’s population affects the level and rate of growth of aggregate output more than it affects unemployment and inflation rates.
Unsupported. We do not have any evidence that a nation’s population affects aggregate output, unemployment, or inflation rates.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that any patriotism in Arton's plays was meant ironically. He supports this by pointing out that when she wrote them, her country was struggling with high unemployment, food costs, and crime, which led to low general morale and patriotism in the country.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author draws a conclusion about Arton’s patriotism based on the general morale of her country at the time. In doing so, he assumes that Arton felt the same way about her country as the general population did. But perhaps Arton still felt patriotic, even though general morale and patriotism were low.
A
posits an unstated relationship between unemployment and crime
The author never claims that unemployment and crime rates in Arton’s country were related to each other. He just says that both were high.
B
takes for granted that straightforward patriotism is not possible for a serious writer
The author never assumes that patriotism is not possible for a serious writer, nor does he make any claims about whether Arton is a serious writer. Instead, he argues that straightforward patriotism is not possible in Arton’s work, given the state of her country at the time.
C
takes for granted that Arton was attuned to the predominant national attitude of her time
By claiming that the patriotism in Arton’s plays was ironic because of low morale and patriotism in her country, the author assumes that Arton shared the predominant national attitude of her time.
D
overlooks the fact that some citizens prosper in times of high unemployment
The author doesn't address this, but it isn’t a flaw in his argument. Some citizens may have prospered despite the high unemployment, but we can’t assume that Arton herself prospered. Either way, (D) fails to address the assumption that Arton shared her country’s general morale.
E
confuses irony with a general decline in public morale
“Irony” and “a general decline in public morale” are used unambiguously to refer to two distinct pieces of the author’s argument.