Q1

[slimjimsquinn]

I chose correct answer B through POE but still have a bit of a problem with it.

I liked the first part "economists definition of prosperity strictly in terms of monetary value is too narrow....." but didn't like this part "to truly capture our ORDINARY conception of this notion.

Did the passage prove that ordinary conception of prosperity includes non-monetary values? I thought it was a bit of an assumption to assume the norm without evidence.

The author mentions timber communities like natural beauty, a non-monetary value, but this specific community may not represent everyone.

Help appreciated! Thank you!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Did the passage prove that ordinary conception of prosperity includes non-monetary values?

Good news! You don't need to "prove" the correct answer on Main Idea questions in RC. Instead it just needs to "most accurately state" the main point.

That said, I still think we can justify the difference between the economists' definition of prosperity and our ordinary conception of prosperity. In lines 51-53, the author discusses the distinction between the economists definition of prosperity and "real" prosperity. It doesn't say that real prosperity is our ordinary conception of this notion, but it's close!

Lets look at the incorrect answers, which you said you could eliminate through process of elimination - another good reason to say that answer choice (B) is the answer choice that most accurately states the main idea.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is too narrow in scope. This is evidence for undermining the critics definition of prosperity.
(C) is unsupported. This is a hypothetical not addressed in the passage.
(D) is unsupported. The critics simply say that prosperity needs to include other factors beyond easy-to-calculate values.
(E) is out of scope. This passage is not about predicting future economic prospects.

[mitrakhanom1]

I still have a question as to why A is considered too narrow of a scope since the author sides with the critics? Also, for answer choice B, when it says 'strictly' and 'too narrow' that gave me the idea that its too narrow for our scope. I was stuck between A and B because I felt each talks a little bit about the main point. Unless I missed the main point in which case can you elaborate on what the main point is? Thanks.

[rinagoldfield]

Hi mitrakhanom1,

Thanks for your question! Main point questions can be hard, and this one is no exception. Remember that you want to find the answer that best captures:

1. BOTH sides of the scale
2. The author’s point of view

Here, the scale is the the economists’ view (Prosperity defined only according to monetary value) vs. the author’s and the critics’ view (Prosperity defined according to a variety of measures). The author and the critics believe that the economists’ definition of prosperity is too narrow.

(A) is too narrow an answer choice because it fails to capture both sides of the scale, and it fails to capture the author’s point of view. First, answer choice (A) doesn’t talk about the economists’ position. Second, answer choice (A) fails to locate the author. WE know the author agrees with the critics, but answer choice (A) doesn’t seem to.


(B), however, describes the economists point of view. Yet (B) also defines the economists’ view as "too narrow." In this way, (B) subtly gives us both sides of the scale (economists vs. the "economists are wrong"). It lets us know the author’s point of view by speaking in the author’s voice (it straight-up tells us the economists are wrong!).

Does that make sense?

[snoopy]

I feel silly for missing the first question. I eliminated B because of "too narrow" - I had dubbed it as strong language. Chose D because "scientifically measured" and "accurately defined" seemed synonymous for "quantifiable terms" (line 47). But, B does encapsulate the author's tone and bias towards the critic, but I can only "feel" the tone. I'm trying to pinpoint the exact times when the author summarizes the economist's point of view and then says "BUT, critics say..."

So far, I've come up with the following:

Line 1 - 5: "Economists have long defined prosperity in terms of monetary value...however, critics point out--" Seems like author is introducing an idea and then counteracting with another POV
Paragraph 2 elaborates on economist's view in application. Paragraph 3 opposes Paragraph.
Line 45-49: "Economists respond by arguing...but this position dodges the issue..." and then an analogy to show that the economist's position on prosperity is limiting.

I thought that for answer choices that are too strong in language, it's best to eliminate. Is this not the proper strategy?

[ohthatpatrick]

Strong language is definitely a red flag in RC, so you shouldn't PICK an answer that has strong language without first making peace with the strong language.

(D) has strong language as well, so you would have had to find textual support for ideas like:
"Prosperity cannot be scientifically measured" (?)
"Prosperity cannot be accurately defined" (?)
"Prosperity is of little use for economists" (?)

The objectors in this passage aren't saying that prosperity CAN'T be quantitatively defined; they're saying is SHOULDN'T be. They aren't saying "get rid of the notion of prosperity; it's of little use". They're saying "FIX the notion of prosperity. Include the complex trade-offs that go beyond dollars and cents."

Yes, it would be easier to calculate if it were only defined quantitatively, but it would be disregarding substantive issues affecting "real prosperity".

That's how we're justifying "too narrow" in (B). If we only focused on money, then we would be disregarding important factors that influence real prosperity.

Hence, defining prosperity strictly in terms of money is too narrow.