Consumer advocate: Economists reason that price gouging—increasing the price of goods when no alternative seller is available—is efficient because it allocates goods to people whose willingness to pay more shows that they really need those goods. But willingness to pay is not proportional to need. In the real world, some people simply cannot pay as much as others. As a result, a price increase will allocate goods to the people with the most money, not to those with the most need.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The consumer advocate argues that price gouging does not efficiently allocate goods to those with the most need but rather to those with the most money. While some economists believe that increasing prices during shortages effectively allocates goods by prioritizing those willing to pay more, the author disputes this. The author contends that willingness to pay is not proportional to need since some people simply cannot pay as much as others.

Identify Argument Part
This claim directly counters the economists' argument that those willing to pay more for a good must *need* the good more. The consumer advocate calls out this assumption by suggesting that those with the most money will end up with the desired good.

A
It disputes one explanation in order to make way for an alternative explanation.
This is not an alternative explanation. It is part of the consumer advocate’s reasoning that is used to reject the economist’s argument.
B
It is the overall conclusion of the argument.
This is not the conclusion of the argument. This supports the conclusion that a price increase will allocate goods to people with the most money.
C
It is a component of reasoning disputed in the argument.
This is not something that the author disputes. The consumer advocate believes this statement and uses it to dispute the economists’ reasoning.
D
It is a general principle whose validity the argument questions.
The argument does not question the validity of this statement. The author believes this statement and uses it to support the main conclusion.
E
It denies a claim that the argument takes to be assumed in the reasoning that it rejects.
This is a tough answer choice to parse through, but it’s dead on. This statement denies a claim (that willingness to pay a price reflects the level of need) that is assumed by the economists’ position, which the author wishes to reject.

71 comments

People with higher-than-average blood levels of a normal dietary by-product called homocysteine are twice as likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease as are those with average or below-average homocysteine levels. Thus, it is likely that the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease could be reduced by including in one’s diet large amounts of B vitamins and folic acid, which convert homocysteine into substances known to have no relation to Alzheimer’s disease.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that Alzheimer’s risk can be reduced by converting homocysteine into other substances. This is based on the fact that people with above-average levels of homocysteine have higher risk of being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no other explanation for the correlation between above-average homocysteine levels and increased risk of Alzheimer’s.

A
Many Alzheimer’s patients have normal homocysteine levels.
A correlation between above-average homocysteine and Alzheimer’s allows for outliers. There can be Alzheimer’s patients with normal or even below-average homocysteine levels.
B
The substances into which homocysteine is converted can sometimes have harmful effects unrelated to Alzheimer’s disease.
If the effects are unrelated to Alzheimer’s, then they have no impact on the conclusion, which is focused only on whether Alzheimer’s can be reduced by converting homocysteine to those substances.
C
B vitamins and folic acid are not metabolized by the body very efficiently when taken in the form of vitamin-mineral supplements.
This just suggests B vitamins and folic acid should be taken in other forms besides vitamin-mineral supplements. The author never suggested any specific form in which we take B vitamins and folic acid.
D
People whose relatives contracted Alzheimer’s disease are much more likely to develop Alzheimer’s than those whose relatives did not.
This suggests that there’s also a genetic component to Alzheimer’s. But there could be a genetic component to having higher homocysteine levels. In addition, it’s possible for there to be multiple, independent causes of Alzheimer’s.
E
Alzheimer’s disease tends to increase the levels of homocysteine in the blood.
This provides an alternate explanation for the correlation observed. If Alzheimer’s increases homocysteine, we’d expect people with Alzheimer’s to have higher levels of homocysteine, even if homocysteine doesn’t cause Alzheimer’s.

23 comments

Sociologist: Television, telephones, and other electronic media encourage imprecise, uncritical thinking. Yet critical thinking is the only adequate protection against political demagogues, who seek to exploit people by presenting emotionally loaded language as an objective description of reality.

Summary

Television, telephones, and other electronic media encourage uncritical thinking. However, critical thinking is the only adequate protection against political demagogues, who seek to exploit people by presenting emotionally loaded language as an objective description of reality.

Notable Valid Inferences

A strong system of government cannot provide adequate protection against the influence of political demagogues.

A
There are no political demagogues in some highly technological societies.

Could be true. We don’t have any information about highly technological societies in the stimulus. It is possible that these societies do not have political demagogues.

B
Political demagogues are not the only ones who seek to exploit people by presenting emotionally loaded language as an objective description of reality.

Could be true. The stimulus does not tell us that political demagogues are the only ones who seek to exploit people. It is possible that there are others in addition to political demagogues with the same or similar objectives.

C
Highly emotional people are more easily exploited than less emotional people.

Could be true. The stimulus does not give us any information about what kinds of people are more easily exploited. It is possible highly emotional people are more easily exploited than less emotional people.

D
The mere presence of an orderly system of government in a society provides adequate protection against political demagogues.

Must be false. The stimulus tells us that critical thinking is the only adequate protection against political demagogues. Everything else, therefore, is inadequate.

E
The mere presence of electronic communications technology in a society provides adequate protection against the erosion of media freedoms.

Could be true. The stimulus is restricted to protection against political demagogues. We cannot assume protection against political demagogues is the same thing as protection from the erosion of media freedoms.


17 comments

Cookie Cutter question:
PT61.S2.Q25


38 comments

Cookie Cutter question:
PT61.S2.Q25


44 comments