I'm not sure if this is just a typo in your question, but the correct answer is actually D. Maybe it will make more sense to you now. The key to this question is the reproduction of the tulip bulbs. Garber describes the fundamental value of tulips almost like an investment. Someone could purchase an original bulb for a high price, and then sell its descendents (copies) for a much lower price, but still make a profit. This is analogous to the publisher who buys the rights to a novel. Although they sell copies for a much lower price, they are expecting to make money from the high volume of sales. This is why Garber didn't find tulip pricing to be irrational/speculative.
There is evidence for this throughout the third paragraph, but I am focusing on line 47 - end.
EmmaklivelyJuly 12, 2021
Why couldn't C be correct? Didn't Garber say that the tulips decreased in price after the once fashionable/exclusive bulbs became common place (after they were made more widely available through harvesting by other planters)?
Emil-KunkinApril 19, 2023
Hi, Garber challenged the conventional view that people were caught up in a bubble, arguing instead that the value of rare bulbs came from the fact they could be used to breed many similar bulbs that could then be sold. This is not the same as buying an item and reselling it at a loss.
