#4 - According to economists, people’s tendency to purchase

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[ChicaRosa]

I can't seem to find the claim"that more steel was purchased when it could be manufactured more cheaply" in the stimulus. The closest one I found was "When new techniques produced cheaper steel, more steel was purchased. Help?

Just to make sure I understand the stimulus' structure here's how I pictured it in my head (and I'm trying to write it in my own words):

Premise 1: "According to economists, people's tendency to purchase a given item is inversely proportional to it's given price."

Premise 2: "When new techniques produced cheaper steel, more steel was purchased."

Sub-conclusion: "Nevertheless, once machine produced lace became available, at much lower $ than hand crafted versions "
Conclusion: "There are exceptions to the economists' general rule."

So with the second premise it's suppose to be an example that supports the general rule of the economists but doesn't apply to the situation described by the subconclusion and conclusion of the argument?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Two things to deal with here, Chica. First, this:

I can't seem to find the claim"that more steel was purchased when it could be manufactured more cheaply" in the stimulus. The closest one I found was "When new techniques produced cheaper steel, more steel was purchased.

You've just answered your own question! The "closest one" (from the stimulus) and the language in the stem are perfect paraphrases for each other. They mean exactly the same thing. You should expect paraphrases often on this test, and you have surely already seen them many times during your studies. You should not expect word-for-word duplication between the stimulus, the stem, and the answer choices, so focus instead on the logical relationships being described. Here, the two statements you asked about, one from the stimulus and one from the stem, are logically identical. It doesn't get better than that on this test!

Second, your analysis of the stimulus is good but for one thing, and that is your identification of the claim about machine-produced lace as a sub-conclusion. It's not - it's a counter-premise. A sub-conclusion is, first and foremost, a conclusion. It has to be supported by one or more premises. That statement had no support at all, and we were supposed to accept it on its own. That means it's definitely a premise, not a conclusion of any kind. In this case, it is a counter-premise because it is designed to show some problem with the earlier parts of the argument. Ultimately, it is used to support the main conclusion, which is that the general rule doesn't always apply.

The rest of your analysis is perfect and supports answer C as the best one. Good job!