Self-study
P1
Economists have long defined prosperity in terms of monetary value, gauging a given nation's prosperity solely on the basis of the total monetary value of the goods and services produced annually. ███
Economists' perspective ·
Measure nation's prosperity based on monetary value of stuff nation produces
Critics' perspective ·
There are other values (besides money) important to prosperity
Such as qualify of life and environmental health.
Example Supporting Critics ·
Things that reduce QOL and environmental health can lead to increased monetary value
Weakening ozone layer leads to sales of hats, sunglasses, and sunscreens. Economists would measure this as increase in prosperity, when it's actually a decrease.
P2
██ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ████████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ███████████ ████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ █████████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████████ █████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██ █████
Risk of Economists' Perspective ·
People can try to increase monetary value but hurt QOL and environment.
In one case, a small town opposed limits on cutting down trees, because it thought limits would decrease wages and jobs.
P3
███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ █ ███████ ██████████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ ████████ █████████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ████ █████ █████████ █ ██████ █████████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ██ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ██ ██ ███ ███ ███████ ████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ █████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████
Critics' Perspective (on town example) ·
The town loses a lot more without the limits
Without limits, their land would be damaged. This hurts something the town clearly values. Also, you can understand the value of the land in monetary terms; the town still loses more from forgoing limits on cutting trees.
P4
██████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ██ █ ██████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ████████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████████████████████ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████████ ███████ ███
Economists' rebuttal ·
Prosperity needs to be quantifiable
Critique ·
But prosperity involves non-quantifiable values
Analogizes economists' position. They're like literary critics who (mistakenly) think sales are a better measure of a book's value than the literary quality of the book.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
1.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████
a
According to critics, ███████████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ █████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ████████████
Anti-supported. In P2, the critics give an example of one rural community that sought to increase its prosperity and did not recognize the need to ensure the health of their environment. But even if (A) were true, the main point of the passage is simply a criticism of the economists’ definition of prosperity.
b
Economists' definition of ██████████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████
The economists define prosperity strictly in terms of monetary value, but
c
If economists were ██ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ █████████████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████████ █████ ██████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ███████████
Unsupported. We don’t know that a broader definition of prosperity would make most communities’ economic and environmental health appear worse. Even if it did, this isn’t the main point of the passage. The main point is a criticism of the economists’ definition of prosperity.
d
In contrast with ███ █████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██ ███████ ██████████████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ ██ █ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ███████████
Unsupported. Neither the author nor the critics suggest that prosperity cannot be accurately measured or defined. They also don’t suggest that prosperity is not a useful concept. They just think that economists’ definition of prosperity is too narrow.
e
While they are █████████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ████████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██████████
Unsupported. The author never says anything about future economic prospects. The main point of the passage is about defining a nation’s prosperity; it’s not about predicting a nation’s future economic prospects.