Hi, relevant sections:
PT 46, RC, passage 1:
This passage refers to the definition of prosperity, how it is gauged by different groups, and references an example of a town that protested harvest limitations because of the effect that could have on their incomes.
The economists' view is that prosperity be defined in monterary terms.
When I looked at this question (and still), they both (C + D) seemed correct to me. I couldn't see a strong way to falsify one over the other. Isn't the other citing a claim that posits that the value (monetary) can be guaged by the incomes (relative to what could be earned) of its residents?
Thanks
RC question, can't see why one answer choice is more wrong. PT 46 Forum
- dontsaywhatyoumean
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:35 pm
RC question, can't see why one answer choice is more wrong. PT 46
Last edited by dontsaywhatyoumean on Sat Nov 19, 2016 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:35 pm
Re: RC question, can't see why one answer choice is more wrong. PT 46
I am basing this reply only on the paragraph quoted in the original post; I haven't yet seen the entire passage.
D) is supported by the claim cited in the second sentence of the paragraph. With respect to C): The claims cited in the last two sentences say that the town's residents value the locale sufficiently to forgo higher incomes elsewhere, which implies the contrary of the answer choice.
I looked at the Spoiler after composing the preceding.
D) is supported by the claim cited in the second sentence of the paragraph. With respect to C): The claims cited in the last two sentences say that the town's residents value the locale sufficiently to forgo higher incomes elsewhere, which implies the contrary of the answer choice.
I looked at the Spoiler after composing the preceding.
- dontsaywhatyoumean
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:35 pm
Re: RC question, can't see why one answer choice is more wrong. PT 46
Thank you, your response at least led me to the strongest refutation I can come up with. It's not as direct a relationship between income and locale, possibly?
I still think it seems weak though. Their income is still being used as a way to gauge the locale's value. They're saying their incomes are lower than elsewhere, and therefore their not moving elsewhere is an indication of the locale's value.
I still think it seems weak though. Their income is still being used as a way to gauge the locale's value. They're saying their incomes are lower than elsewhere, and therefore their not moving elsewhere is an indication of the locale's value.