Last year the rate of inflation was 1.2 percent, but for
the current year it has been 4 percent. We can
conclude that inflation is on an upward trend and the
rate will be still higher next year.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens
the conclusion above?
(A) The inflation figures were computed on the basis
of a representative sample of economic data
rather than all of the available data.
(B) Last year a dip in oil prices brought inflation
temporarily below its recent stable annual level
of 4 percent.
(C) Increases in the pay of some workers are tied
to the level of inflation, and at an inflation rate of
4 percent or above, these pay raises constitute
a force causing further inflation.
(D) The 1.2 percent rate of inflation last year
represented a 10-year low.
(E) Government intervention cannot affect the rate
of inflation to any significant degree.
Can someone please explain why D does not weaken the argument. According to me D & B both equally weaken the argument. If last year was a 10 year low, under no circumstances there can be an uptrend (it means there is a downtrend, or a nearly stable value, or a one-off value in the last year despite of the uptrend in previous years: but clearly the possibility of an uptrend is negated)
OG explanation is beyond my understanding as well : it says the inflation might be decreasing ever so slightly in previous years i.e. from 1.25% to 1.20% it can hardly be called a downtrend.
But, "not a downtrend" does not mean an uptrend.
the current year it has been 4 percent. We can
conclude that inflation is on an upward trend and the
rate will be still higher next year.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens
the conclusion above?
(A) The inflation figures were computed on the basis
of a representative sample of economic data
rather than all of the available data.
(B) Last year a dip in oil prices brought inflation
temporarily below its recent stable annual level
of 4 percent.
(C) Increases in the pay of some workers are tied
to the level of inflation, and at an inflation rate of
4 percent or above, these pay raises constitute
a force causing further inflation.
(D) The 1.2 percent rate of inflation last year
represented a 10-year low.
(E) Government intervention cannot affect the rate
of inflation to any significant degree.
Can someone please explain why D does not weaken the argument. According to me D & B both equally weaken the argument. If last year was a 10 year low, under no circumstances there can be an uptrend (it means there is a downtrend, or a nearly stable value, or a one-off value in the last year despite of the uptrend in previous years: but clearly the possibility of an uptrend is negated)
OG explanation is beyond my understanding as well : it says the inflation might be decreasing ever so slightly in previous years i.e. from 1.25% to 1.20% it can hardly be called a downtrend.
But, "not a downtrend" does not mean an uptrend.
