The Scorpio-Miser costs more than the standard Scorpio sports car. However, the Scorpio-Miser has a special high-efficiency engine. Therefore, at 60,000 miles, the money saved in fuel cost will make up the difference in price. The argument explains that if fuel prices fell, it would take fewer miles to reach the break-even point. However, if fuel prices were lower, it would actually take more miles to reach the break-even point.
Think about it this way, if the difference in price between the Scorpio-Miser and the standard Scorpio was $10, and fuel prices are $5 per mile, it would take 2 miles to break even with the price difference. However, if fuel prices drop to $1 per mile, it would take 10 miles to break even with the price difference. Therefore, if fuel prices fell, it would actually take more miles to reach the break-even point.
Likewise, in answer choice (C) the competing model costs less than the Roadmaker. The argument states that reducing staffing levels made possible by the Roadmaker eventually compensates for its higher price. However, if you reduce staffing levels and your average wages are low, then you are compensating less money than if you were reducing staffing levels and your average wages were high. Similar to the stimulus, in places where the average wages are low, it is actually not advantageous to use the Roadmaker because you wouldn't be saving as much money by reducing staffing levels.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions!
