#12 - In discussing the pros and cons of monetary union

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The argument is that since living standards can be widely different from area to area within an economically stable country, it is possible that a monetary union of European countries with differing living standards would be stable.

The argument makes an analogy based on the assumption, somewhat unwarranted, that what is true within a nation should also be true in an international sense. Without that assumption, the analogy comparing conditions within one nation to conditions across nations is unsupported.

Answer choice (A): The author might be interpreted to imply that the temporal relationship-- that living standards must first converge-- is incorrect. However, this choice does not mention the author's analogy, and the question asked you what the author's method was, not what he argued against, so this choice is wrong. Furthermore, the relationship the author's opponents claimed might exist in a timeline when applied; however, it is more appropriately seen as a conditional relationship. The correct interpretation of "would first have to converge if the monetary union is not to lead to economic chaos" is that of the conditional:

• Stable Converge,
  
  Converge Stability.

The result of the conditional might be temporal, but the politicians were arguing more specifically about what factors are necessary.

Answer choice (B) The author is not referring to earlier instances, but to contemporary instances, and this response is incorrect. Furthermore, the author uses a situation that is too different to be considered an "earlier instance."

Answer choice (C) The author actually implies that less caution is needed, so this answer choice, which states that all efforts are doomed, is contrary to the stimulus and incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The author does assume that conditions within a nation reflect possible conditions across nations. Furthermore, by referencing the "incompatible elements," this answer choice correctly identifies that the author has pointed out a situation that does not obey the politicians' conditional rule.

Answer choice (E) Since the author very definitely states that the politicians' claim is false, this choice is opposite the stimulus, and incorrect.

[mcioci]

I ultimately got down to A and D as my two potential answer choices but ruled out D because I thought an analogy was used to support the author's claim rather than an example. I thought there needed to be a specific illustration for something to count as an example. For example, the author mentioning two specific regions within a country where the living standards diverge that nevertheless have stable economies to refute the politician's claim.

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Mcioci,

You said that you eliminated answer choice (D) because you were looking for an 'analogy,' rather than an 'example.' Take another look at this answer choice. It states that the politician gives "an example ... assumed to be relevantly similar..." to support the claim. This statement perfectly describes an analogy.

You were correct to look for an answer choice that communicated that the speaker gave an analogy. However, it seems like you were too tied down with looking for the exact wording that you predicted. It seems like you were able to prephrase the correct answer choice with a lot of accuracy! Just remember that the test-makers have a lot of options for the exact words that they can use. Look at the wider context of the statement that is in front of you, instead of seeking out specific wording.

As for the meaning of the word 'example.' This word can be used in a variety of ways. You may be given a specific example, but anything that illustrates a claim may be referred to as an 'example.' In this way, every analogy is an example of a similar situation.

[sdb606]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The argument is that since living standards can be widely different from area to area within an economically stable country, it is possible that a monetary union of European countries with differing living standards would be stable.

The argument makes an analogy based on the assumption, somewhat unwarranted, that what is true within a nation should also be true in an international sense. Without that assumption, the analogy comparing conditions within one nation to conditions across nations is unsupported.

Is this the argument though? I'm getting thrown off by the mention of monetary union. I thought the argument is:

monetary union NOT lead to economic chaos same living standards all around

The author is saying:

NOT economic chaos different living standards all around

This is different. The author has made a leap by adding in the monetary union variable. Could I say the author's argument is flawed because he doesn't address the politicians' position? He's saying the politicians are wrong because there are countries with different living standards and good economies.

But I say that maybe introducing a monetary union will ruin their economies. The author's argument is flawed because it doesn't refute the politicians' claim because the politicians can still claim that a monetary union will ruin the economy even if the economy was stable before.

[Adam Tyson]

I think it's a mistake to impose a conditional relationship on the author's argument here, sdb606. The author is not saying that whenever you do not have chaos, you do have different living standards. He's merely saying that in some cases there is no chaos despite different living standards. And monetary union isn't ignored, because the presumption is that within a single nation there is a single monetary system. It's implicit in the argument (although it may be incorrect - perhaps within a single country there are regional monetary systems).

Ultimately, the flaw(s) in the argument aren't relevant to our analysis, because our only job is to describe HOW the author made their case, not how good a job they did of it. Ultimately, the "how" here is by showing a supposedly similar case which doesn't conform to the concerns of the referenced politicians. That should be our prephrase, and that is what should guide us to the correct answer.

[mollylynch]

Hello, I understand why D is the correct answer, but I still do not see why A is wrong. Isn't "would first have to converge if monetary union is not to lead to economic chaos" a temporal relationship?

[Adam Tyson]

One problem with answer A, Molly, is that nobody is mistaken about that temporal relationship. They aren't arguing about what comes first and what comes second, but about whether the first thing actually needs to occur before the second thing can occur. Answer A would be more like "some people have seen that one thing came before another, and they mistakenly concluded that the first thing must have caused the second thing."

Another problem with that answer is that nobody is "observing" a temporal relationship. Those making the first claim didn't see this temporal relationship happening somewhere; they are just claiming that it must exist, and our author is using an analogy to show that it doesn't need to exist.