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
7.
The primary purpose of the ███████ ██ ██
a
argue that there ██ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████████ █ ███████ ███████
The author does describe a conflict between the economists and the critics concerning the definition of prosperity. But she doesn’t argue that this conflict is “inherent” or “detrimental.” Even if she did, the primary purpose of the passage is not to make an argument about the conflict itself; the primary purpose is to criticize the economists’ definition.
b
summarize and illustrate ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ █ ███████ ███████
The author does summarize and illustrate points of conflict between the economists and the critics over the definition of prosperity. But this is not the primary purpose of the passage. The primary purpose is to criticize the economists’ position, not simply to give a neutral summary of both positions.
c
question one school ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ █ ███████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████ ████████ ███████████ ███████████
The author does question the economists’ definition of prosperity, but she doesn’t suggest several alternative definitions. She just presents the critics’ critique of the economists’ definition and argues that the economists’ definition is too narrow.
d
criticize one school ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ █ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████
The primary purpose of the passage is to criticize the economists’ definition of prosperity. The author does this by providing examples— like the ozone layer and the rural community— that illustrate the negative implications of adhering to their definition.
e
bring one school ██ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ██ █ ███████ █████████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████
The author never suggests that the concept of prosperity is traditionally considered to be the exclusive territory of economists. Instead, the primary purpose of her passage is simply to criticize the economists’ position.