#14 - Economist: A country’s trade deficit may indicate

[mpoulson]

Hello,

Can you explain why C is better than B? I thought the analogy about the glass of cold water was the "demonstration of an analogy explicitly used to establish a certain conclusion is faulty" I thought the faulty conclusion was that "trade deficits do not weaken the economy". Please explain in simple terms why this is wrong and why C is right?

Resectfully,

Micah

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Micah,

Here, the analogy about the cold water is not used to establish the conclusion being argued against; rather, it is a (non-faulty) analogy that demonstrates why the course of action of restricting imports is futile. The argument here is against something implied, rather stated directly: that it is a bad idea to restrict imports to try to reduce a trade deficit.

[mpoulson]

Can you guide me a little further on this one? So the conclusion is not stated in the text? I thought the economist's argument was the conclusion? That restricting imports to reduce a trade deficit should not be the course of action taken to improve the economy. I thought this was the conclusion and main argument. Additionally, what specifically is wrong with C? Is the word "futility" too strong? I didn't think it was since the analogy was quite strong.

[BethRibet]

Hi Micah,

Thanks for asking.

In answer choice C the course of action the author is referencing would be restricting imports with the goal of reducing a trade deficit. The author then uses the analogy about the thermometer to argue that this course of action would be a foolish thing to do, and this is all that C indicates.

Answer choice B is saying that the author argues that the analogy itself is a bad one, as if the author said, "hey, my analogy is stupid and doesn't work." The author just uses the analogy, and certainly doesn't attack or critique it, so B is not at all accurate.

Hope this clarifies.

Beth

[mpoulson]

I understand now. Thank you.