Passage Summary: People think workers are saving more and spending less because of local layoffs, but the author argues this isn't true because savings account balances haven't spiked.

Conclusion: Employed people are not actually spending less money despite the regional staff reductions.

Reasoning: There has been no unusual increase in the amount of money these people are holding in their savings accounts.

Analysis: This argument functions by attempting to disprove a claim by pointing to the absence of a specific expected result. The author assumes that if people were spending less, that 'extra' money would necessarily end up in savings accounts. When identifying the method, focus on how the author uses evidence about one factor to refute a claim about another. You should look for a description that mentions using the lack of evidence for a predicted consequence to argue against the existence of the cause.