Critical Reasoning

When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more of their money, but when nuclear arms testing increased people tended to spend more of their money. The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.

The argument above assumes that

A) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years
B) most people supported the development of nuclear arms
C) people's perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done
D) the people who saved the most money when nuclear -arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations
E) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases

The OA is C.

How can I discard the other options?

Vincen wrote:When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more of their money, but when nuclear arms testing increased people tended to spend more of their money. The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.

The argument above assumes that

A) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years
B) most people supported the development of nuclear arms
C) people's perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done
D) the people who saved the most money when nuclear -arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations
E) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases

The OA is C.

How can I discard the other options?

Conclusion: Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe decreases people's willingness to save
Premise: When arms testing increases people save less

So we're assuming a link between arms-testing and the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe. This is what C gives us.

Vincen wrote:When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more of their money, but when nuclear arms testing increased people tended to spend more of their money. The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.

The argument above assumes that

A) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years
B) most people supported the development of nuclear arms
C) people's perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done
D) the people who saved the most money when nuclear -arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations
E) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases

The OA is C.

How can I discard the other options?

Or use negation: the correct answer, when negated, should undermine the argument.

C negated: people's perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe DOESN'T depend on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done

Well, if there's no link between the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe and the amount of arms-testing being done, then the conclusion that the threat of nuclear catastrophe is linked to saving levels no longer makes sense. Because the negation of C undermines the argument, we know it's the correct answer.