Q12 - In discussing the pros and cons

[wj097]

I could not eliminate B...
Based on the premise, "if not to lead to chaos, then first converge" (contrapositive being " If not converge first, then chaos"), the example given shows that the predicted consequence (chaos) did not occur, and this is an earlier instance.. so not sure what is clearly wrong about B

Thx

[sumukh09]

For this question type it's best not to get caught up in conditional statements. We just want to an answer choice that describes the method of reasoning employed by the author. Also, B does not describe an argumentative strategy based on conditional reasoning. The author is not presenting an "earlier instance," of anything. He just says that the politicians' claims are false because there are economies that are stable but nevertheless have divergent living standards.

D describes this well - the incompatible elements being divergent living standards and economic stability.

[rinagoldfield]

Hey wj, good question"”answer choice (B) is indeed very tempting.

But (B) talks about "an earlier instance of the action being considered." What is the action being considered here? Merging several nations. The author does NOT offer an earlier example of merging several nations. Rather, the author offers a situation that is analogous to "the action being considered."

One nation containing regions with disparate living standards is similar to, but not the same as, many merged nations with disparate living standards.

(D) talks about a situation that is considered "similar" to the proposed action. This is supported.

Does that make sense?

[uhdang]

Just want to add my thought into B)'s reasoning.

instance of the action being considered in which the predicted consequences did not occur would be converging leading to economic chaos nonetheless. But this is not what the author claimed. He/she claimed diverging leading to stable economy. (of course in a similar setting, not exactly the same setting)

[clement.odumenya]

Plz can some one explain why c is wrong

[ohthatpatrick]

Let me put up a complete explanation since we don't have one yet.

Question Type: Describe (Method)

Argument Core:

conclusion
It's not true that European countries would need to converge living conditions in order to have a stable monetary union.
(why?)
evidence
Within countries that have stable economies, you still see diverging living conditions

Analysis:
These questions just want us to pick an answer choice that matches. They usually want us to characterize the evidence, and they usually pull from this list of options:
- counterexample
- analogy
- implications of someone's logic
- ruling out alternatives
- alternative explanation for something

(A) The premise has nothing to do with a "temporal relationship" (before/after). The premise is just a counterexample to the politicians' very extreme claim that stable economy requires converged living standards.

(B) What is the "action being considered"? A monetary union among several European nations. What are the "predicted consequences"? Ummm, economic chaos, if we don't first converge living standards.

So do they present an earlier instance of MONETARY UNION in which the predicted consequence of ECONOMIC CHAOS doesn't occur?

Kind of. I would keep it on a first pass, although the countries w/ stable economies we're pointing to are in the present day, not an earlier instance. And these countries aren't really an example of a monetary union between several nations.

(C) The "feared consequence" is ECONOMIC CHAOS. Does the author say "economic chaos is going to occur regardless of what we choose to do"?

Nope.

(D) There is an example in our premise. It is assumed to be similar, though it may not be (we're talking about regions within a country under one currency ... as opposed to several European nations banding together under one currency). What are the allegedly incompatible elements? Diverging living standards and economic stability. The politicians are actually claiming a conditional rule that would say "diverging living standards --> economic chaos". So this seems to match everything.

(E) Our author is concluding "this claim is plainly false", so the 2nd half of (E) does not match our author at all.

(D) is the correct answer.