- Joined
- Jun 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
The way I can best describe the correct answer is with math!
It goes: Bring about X economy, then after that, achieve maximum total utility.
There is a % chance of achieving X economy, and a % chance of achieving maximum utility. The most likely option is the higher product of these two probabilities.
So a critic could say that a pure free market economy could only have a 1% chance of being brought about if pursued by the controlled economy, but then a 100% of achieving maximum utility.
On the flip side, a controlled economy has a 100% of achieving a controlled economy (it already has one) and has a 50% chance of achieving maximum utility.
Both these situations satisfy the premises that the editorial gives, but the free market getting total utility is only a 1%, while a controlled economy is 50%.
The key part of this problem is realizing that achieving this outcome is a two-step process, and the editorial doesn't give us the odds for the transition from controlled to free market. Therefore, it does not justify that switching to a free market is the most likely outcome to achieve maximum utility.
I got this one right but totally missed the distinction between residents of a city in the hospital and residents of a city in that cities hospitals. I just thought that the City Y had such better quality hospitals that people would leave it more often, thus balancing out any people sent for treatment. Bruh.

It seems to me that the main point of passage A is that in history there was a trend away from studying Women's individual lived experiences and toward gender as a social structure, and that we lost care about historical women's lived experiences as a result.
Not too difficult for me as a history major, but for any non-humanities major, I can see how this can seem confusing.