Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard as causing recession, was high preceding the recent recession, but so was the value of assets owned by households. Admittedly, if most of the assets were owned by quite affluent households, and most of the debt was owed by low-income households, high household debt levels could have been the cause of the recession despite high asset values: low-income households might have decreased spending in order to pay off debts while the quite affluent ones might simply have failed to increase spending. But, in fact, quite affluent people must have owed most of the household debt, since money is not lent to those without assets. Ttherefore, the real cause must lie elsewhere. The argument is structured to lead to which one of the following conclusions? ['When people borrowed money prior to the recent recession, they did not use it to purchase assets.', 'High levels of household debt did not cause the recent recession.', 'Low-income households succeeded in paying off their debts despite the recent recession.', 'High levels of household debt have little impact on the economy.']