BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

When news periodicals begin

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:59 am
Thanked: 4 times

When news periodicals begin

by kullayappayenugula » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:51 pm
When news periodicals begin forecasting a recession, people tend to spend less money on discretionary purchases. Therefore, the perceived threat of recession decreases the willingness of people to purchase products that they
regard as optional or luxury goods.

The argument above assumes that _

(A) there are more luxury goods available after a recession is forecast
(B) recently, the threat of recession has been increasingly publicized as news periodicals have grown more pervasive
(C) most people do not regularly read news periodicals
(D) people's perception of the threat of recession increases when news periodicals begin forecasting a recession
(E) the people who spent the most money before a recession was forecast were among those who curtailed their spending after the recession became apparent

[spoiler] Was stuck between B and D but chose D as D mentioned perception of the threat of recession instead of threat of recession. Is this right? [/spoiler] I am not good at using negation. Can anyone tell me how to use negation in this case
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:13 am
When news periodicals begin forecasting a recession, people tend to spend less money on discretionary purchases. Therefore, the perceived threat of recession decreases the willingness of people to purchase products that they regard as optional or luxury goods.
Argument says that people tend to spend LESS money because news periodicals's forecasting a recession increases threat among people. So, what can be possible assumptions:
i) no other cause that increases threat of recession among people happens at the same time when news periodicals forecast a recession
ii) news periodicals's forecasting a recession increases the threat among people

d) is paraphrase of ii). You can also use negation technique. Do not learn the process. See why it works and you will never forget it. Since assumption is NECESSARY for argument to STAND, if i take the assumption away or negate it, argument should FALL.

Negation of D: people's perception of the threat of recession DOES NOT increases when news periodicals begin forecasting a recession
If people's perception of threat is NOT increased when news periodicals begin forecasting a recession, then we CANNOT CONCLUDE that perceived threat of recession decreases the willingness of people to purchase products. So, argument falls by negating d) and this option is correct.

In so far as your confusion regarding b) is concerned, lets parse it to see why it is wrong. This one goes wrong from the very first word "recently". Argument does not say that the cause-effect relationship mentioned happened recently, so anything that is only true about recent times cannot be assumption. Even if "recently" is not mentioned this option will be incorrect. Argument is that people's perception of threat is increased and this assumption that threat of recession has been increasingly publicized is not applicable here. Though this reason might seem plausible in daily life, we cannot assume that if something is should increasingly, it will change perception of viewers. Therefore, B is wrong.
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1