Here Brunhilda generalizes that her generation will be the first that will not enjoy a better standard of living than their parents. Siegfried disagrees and points out that he lives better than his parents do and his parents do not live as well as their parents did before them. To him, his own personal experience disproves Brunhilda's argument. (A) describes an error that Siegfried has made. He sites his own limited experience as if it were conclusive proof that Brunhilda is wrong. He is the authority on his family's situation, but it is unreasonable to draw the conclusion he did based upon one individual scenario. (B) is incorrect because he is not simply assuming a position to be true without offering any evidence. He offers evidence to prove his point. It is just not comprehensive. (C) is incorrect because Siegfried does not offer an example that is aligned with Brunhilda's position. Au contraire, Siegfried offers an example that IS inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument. (D) is incorrect because Siegfried's argument is based upon current and past realities (his standard of living, his parents', and his grandparents'), not upon "unproven speculation about future events." (E) is wrong because Siegfried does not argue a causal relationship at all. He does not attempt to explain what causes the difference in standard of living between him and his parents. He just uses that standard of living difference as an example to dispute Brunhilda.

^n_niaz - GOTCHA - Excellent analysis. Keep em coming. BTW where is this question from?

it still doesn't make any sense to me! I thought B was the correct answer - anyone?

I think it should be E.. The reasoning above seems to be good but that leads to the answer as E rather than A..

I suppose so.. any thoughts..

IMO: B.

But didnt understand E properly.

Please help.

Thanks.

n_niaz wrote:Brunhilda: Economists have predicted that our generation will be the first that cannot confidently look forward to having a better standard of living than that enjoyed by our parents.

Siegfried: That's simply untrue. My father's standard of living is nowhere near as high as his parents' was, and my own standard of living is already higher than that of my parents.

c) It offers an example that is not inconsistent with Brunhilda's argument.
e) It uses evidence of a correlation to argue the existence of a causal relationship.

Between C and E, I chose C. The reason is that the Siegfried's example is exactly what the economist given. So it is 'consistent' or 'not inconsistent'.

Hope that help.