It says if the chairman keeps interest rates excessively low for a decade. The answer that was chosen as the correct one states that interest rates be excessively low for MORE than a decade. This is why I said none of the above

Oge, thanks for using the app and the post. If the interest rates have been kept excessively low for MORE than a decade, then it is the more reason for an asset bubble to develop.

The original statement presents a sentence that indicates a maximum amount of time in years for the asset bubble to develop (keep interest rates excessively low for a decade). The answer choice presents a solution that indicates a minimum amount of time in years for the asset bubble to develop (keeps interest rates excessively low for MORE than a decade)

How is it not B? They stated that the asset bubble would be in place if interest rates are keep excessively low for a decade but they finished with it would be there if there was such a thing of a assets bubble meaning there isn't such a bubble. But interest rates were low. Answer B is more then likely interest rates were low

Diagram the statements:
I. (IR is kept low for 10 years) --> AB
The contrapositive: ~ AB --> ~ (IR is kept low for 10 years)

II. AB --> indicators for AB
~ indicators for AB --> ~ AB

Work out the conclusion:
From the 2nd statement's contrapositive, we conclude there is no indicator for AB, which means there is no AB.

Apply this to the first statement's contrapositive: If there is no AB, then it is not true that interest rates have been kept low for 10 years.

Now, I know the choice C says "... for more than 10 years" instead of just "... for 10 years". I wish the question author hadn't done it.

However, from the statement we know that if keeping the IR low for even longer will make the AB develop even more.