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
3.
Based on the information in ███ ████████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██████
a
Paradoxically, the weakening ██ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ███████████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ █████
Anti-supported. The author says
b
The environmental effects ██ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████
Unsupported. The author says that as the ozone layer weakens, it will cause an increase in monetary value and a decrease in environmental health. But she doesn’t mention which one of these will happen more quickly.
c
The appearance of ██████████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███
Unsupported. The author does say that the economists’ view would measure the weakening of the ozone layer as an increase in prosperity, since it increases monetary value. But she never suggests that this has drawn anyone’s attention away from solving the problem.
d
This problem should ██ ████████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ████ ████████████ ██ ████ ███████████
Supported. The weakening of the ozone layer may appear to contribute to prosperity under the economists’ definition, since it can increase monetary value. But the author and the critics agree that it actually threatens true prosperity through “troubling reductions in environmental health and quality of life.”
e
This problem has ████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ██ ███ █████████ ███████
Unsupported. The author never suggests that the weakening of the ozone layer was partially caused by economists. She just uses it as an example to undermine the economists’ view that prosperity should be defined in strictly monetary terms.