- Posts: 2
- Joined: Jan 09, 2022
- Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:40 pm
#93211
Hi Adam,
I just had a quick question about the stimulus. I understand your point about there being a term shift between "average price paid for a new car" and "individuals buying new cars today," but I spotted another flaw in this argument and I was wondering if you could tell me if it is also correct.
So basically, the argument states that the average price paid for a new car has increased in relation to average individual income over the last 25 years, and from this given data, it concludes that individuals are spending a greater percentage of their income buying new cars compared to 25 years ago.
When I read this, the first issue that popped up in my head was, "what if the incomes increased at a much faster rate than the new car prices?" If this were the case, then even if individuals were paying much higher prices for new cars, it wouldn't necessarily mean that they would be spending a larger percentage of their incomes than before.
For example, let's say that the price of a new car increased from $10 to $20, but incomes also increased from $100 to $100,000. So before, the individuals would be spending 10% of their income on new cars, but now, they would be spending 0.02% of their income on new cars.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find an answer choice that pointed out this issue, but if there was such an answer choice, would this be a valid way of weakening the argument?
I just had a quick question about the stimulus. I understand your point about there being a term shift between "average price paid for a new car" and "individuals buying new cars today," but I spotted another flaw in this argument and I was wondering if you could tell me if it is also correct.
So basically, the argument states that the average price paid for a new car has increased in relation to average individual income over the last 25 years, and from this given data, it concludes that individuals are spending a greater percentage of their income buying new cars compared to 25 years ago.
When I read this, the first issue that popped up in my head was, "what if the incomes increased at a much faster rate than the new car prices?" If this were the case, then even if individuals were paying much higher prices for new cars, it wouldn't necessarily mean that they would be spending a larger percentage of their incomes than before.
For example, let's say that the price of a new car increased from $10 to $20, but incomes also increased from $100 to $100,000. So before, the individuals would be spending 10% of their income on new cars, but now, they would be spending 0.02% of their income on new cars.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find an answer choice that pointed out this issue, but if there was such an answer choice, would this be a valid way of weakening the argument?
