adg142000 wrote:
pqhai wrote:
nitin6305 wrote:
I almost understood the reasoning completely.
My only doubt is with option D, " if all the years before last year the rate of inflation was more than 1.2% or lets say if it was stable 4%, and it dropped to 1.2% for just one year. Subsequently, the rate became stable again as 4% , so doesn't it mean that there is no upward trend ?"
My only doubt is with option D, " if all the years before last year the rate of inflation was more than 1.2% or lets say if it was stable 4%, and it dropped to 1.2% for just one year. Subsequently, the rate became stable again as 4% , so doesn't it mean that there is no upward trend ?"
Hi nitin
You have a very good question.
There would be no upward trend, if only last year inflation rate dropped to 1.2%. Because:
(1) The conclusion is " inflation is on upward trend and the rate will be still higher next year". If the next year the inflation rate will be stable at 4%, you CANNOT conclude that the inflation is on upward trend, and the rate will be still higher.
(2) If you base only on data of two years (last year and current year) to conclude the upward trend, why don't you conclude the downward trend for the last year and the year before last year (4% ==> 2%). Hence, your conclusion is not strong enough to conclude the inflation is on upward trend.
Hope it's clear.
If you base only on data of two years (last year and current year) to conclude the upward trend, why don't you conclude the downward trend for the last year and the year before last year (4% ==> 2%). Hence, your conclusion is not strong enough to conclude the inflation is on upward trend.
doesnt this mean it is also actually weakining the conclusion of upward trend
Hi adg142000
This is just an example I used to clarify nitin's doubt about option D. Before answer your question, I just want to clarify D a bit.
D says: "The 1.2 percent rate of inflation last year represented a ten-year low".
Thus, the inflation rates pattern should be: HIGH (the year before last year) ==> LOW (last year) ==> HIGH (current year).
I used my example to show: if we use only data from last year to current year to conclude inflation is on upward trend ==> we could be wrong. Because if we use data from the year before last year to last year ==> we can also conclude inflation is on downward trend.
Your question is: does the second part (conclusion about downward trend) actually weaken the main conclusion? If it does, D may be right?
I would say no, the second part of my example just shows the comparison used in the stimulus is invalid. Because if can say the inflation is on upward by using only data of two years, we can also conclude the inflation is on downward by using data from other two years. The reverse pattern is also true, if we use only data from two years to conclude inflation is on downward (It is your inquiry), we can also use data from last year to current year to weaken the "new" conclusion (inflation is on downward). In short, D is not strong enough to weaken the main conclusion, because it's half right, half wrong.
Hope it clears your doubt.