I apologize for not following the protocol.
Not a problem! Now you know for future.
[FYI: I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow (Tue) evening and won't be back until 5 July. While I'm gone, please talk to other experts; otherwise, I will reply after I return. (It may take me a few days after I get back to get through the backlog of PMs).]
Question stem: "cast doubt" on the "validity of the argument above." We have to weaken the given argument.
Argument:
1) predic of slow econ growth in coming year --> recent decline in employment rate
2) BUT, If major industries had NOT lacked capital reserves --> the predictions would not have caused the employment rate to decline.
3) CONC: If major industries INCR capital reserves --> employment rate won't decline
Assumptions:
i)
nothing else could cause the employment rate to decline, as long as major industries do increase capital reserves. is this really true?
ii) "increasing" capital reserves is the same thing as "not lacking" capital reserves. is this really true?
Answers:
(A) There seems to be something missing from the transcription of this choice - possibly minor, possibly major. "A" major industry? "One" major industry? Is it supposed to say "SOME major industrIES?" Please make sure to transcribe problems 100% correctly.
(B) The argument doesn't claim that ALL major industries lacked capital reserves. If some did have capital reserves, that still allows many others to lack capital reserves - which fits in with what the argument claims. Eliminate.
(C) "An increase in labor costs" This affects the first assumption - I have to assume that NOTHING else could possibly cause the employment rate to decline. This one gives me something else that could cause the employment rate to decline. Looking good so far.
(D) The governement could do this. Does the "fixed amount" reflect an "increase" in capital reserves? We don't know beacuse the choice doesn't tell us that? Then it's not a good choice.
Eliminate.
(E) This choice compares data for this year and last year. The argument's conclusion concerns a prediction for employment rates in the
future. That's already one ding against this choice. Further, the argument does not give any information about the differences between what led to the more mild drop in the unemployment rate last year and the more severe unemployment rate drop this year. If I don't know why one was more severe than the other, then it's tough to extrapolate that information to make some kind of future prediction. No good.
In the above, C directly attacks one of the assumptions that must be true in order for the author's argument to make sense (really, the primary assumption, in my opinion). Answer choice E in the article talks about another plan for accomplishing a particular goal - but the other question was specifically asking me to weaken the idea that weakening the currency --> an increase in exports. The fact that a different plan is viable doesn't mean that the existing plan won't work. (For example, I have a plan to lose weight by eating fewer calories every day. You tell me that I could also lose weight by exercising every day, and that doctors think losing weight by exercising is a healthier way to lose weight. Does that mean that I cannot lose weight by eating fewer calories? No. Your statement about exercising doesn't affect my plan one way or the other; it's just another way of doing things.)
