HiKarishmaB AjiteshArun
I had a bit trouble understanding the argument here. Please help meout!
Conclusion: Therefore, the real cause must lieelsewhere
So my anti-conclusionis: ''high household debt levels COULD HAVEBEEN the cause of the recession despite high asset values
What bothered me is that stimulussays:
But, in fact, quite affluent people must have owed most of the household debt, since money is not lent to those without assets. Therefore, the real cause must lieelsewhere.
Is it implicit in THIS part of the stimulus that, Rich folks, in reality, didn't owe the most of the householddebt?
Is it an assumption?
If yes, then i can easily see, why (A) is the answer.
Stimulus says: A &B are the possibilities for eventX , but option (A) says that, Hey you have not considered the possibility''C''
...
I had a bit trouble understanding the argument here. Please help meout!
Conclusion: Therefore, the real cause must lieelsewhere
So my anti-conclusionis: ''high household debt levels COULD HAVEBEEN the cause of the recession despite high asset values
What bothered me is that stimulussays:
Quote:
But, in fact, quite affluent people must have owed most of the household debt, since money is not lent to those without assets. Therefore, the real cause must lieelsewhere.
Is it implicit in THIS part of the stimulus that, Rich folks, in reality, didn't owe the most of the householddebt?
Is it an assumption?
If yes, then i can easily see, why (A) is the answer.
Stimulus says: A &B are the possibilities for eventX , but option (A) says that, Hey you have not considered the possibility''C''
...
Statistics : Posted by ashutosh_73 • on 18 Feb 2020, 02:09 • Replies 8 • Views 7295
