#18 - The widespread staff reductions in a certain region’s

[saiffshaikhh@gmail.com]

I still do not understand the stimulus, which is why I got it wrong. I picked D, thinking that it satisfied the necessary assumption.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi saiffshaikhh!

Let's start by breaking down the stimulus:

Premise 1: Widespread staff reductions are said to be causing people with jobs to cut back on new purchases.
Conclusion: Actual spending is undiminished, though, as there has been no unusual increase in the amounts of money in people's saving accounts.

So, our answer choice needs to rule out any alternative reason as to why new purchases are down, but savings are not increasing more than usual.

Answer Choice A states: " If people in the region who continue to be employed have debts, they are not now paying them off at an accelerated rate."

If people with jobs were allocating their spending money towards paying off debts instead of their savings, that would provide an explanation as to why new purchases are down, but savings have not increased. So, by ruling this out, we rule out an alternative reason as to why new purchases are down, but savings have not increased, thereby allowing us to conclude that actual spending hasn't decreased.

Answer Choice D states: "People in the region who continue to be employed are pessimistic about their prospects for increasing their incomes."

This may well be true, however, it doesn't allow us to draw our conclusion properly. It has nothing to do with spending versus savings, and therefore is out of scope.

I hope this helps!