Q3

[esnanees]

Can someone please help me locate in the passage why answer choice D is the correct one? I tot the passage infers that the author agrees to a broader definition of Prosperity- implying the weakening of the ozone layer helps to bolster prosperity and thus expands its definition?

I chose answer choice A because i inferred from lines 10-15: where the author opinion is not stated but lines 49+ clearly states the authors opinion.

Can someone help please?

[maryadkins]

The key to this question is to recognize what side of the scale the author falls on. The author disagrees with economists' definition of prosperity, and the ozone layer is an example given of why their definition is too narrow.

The weakening of the ozone layer, in the author's view, is not indicative of true prosperity. (If this wasn't clear to you, re-read the first paragraph.)

(A) puts the author on the wrong side of the scale.
(B), (C), and (E) unsupported--these aren't discussed in reference to the ozone layer in the passage.

Hope this helps.

[erwin.kristen]

The key to this question is to recognize what side of the scale the author falls on. The author disagrees with economists' definition of prosperity, and the ozone layer is an example given of why their definition is too narrow.

The weakening of the ozone layer, in the author's view, is not indicative of true prosperity. (If this wasn't clear to you, re-read the first paragraph.)

This doesn't make any sense to me. I understand that the author disagrees with the economists. But where are you pulling "true prosperity" from? The author talks about how defining prosperity solely as a function of monetary value is questionable because it leaves out important factors like environmental health and quality of life. Then gives an example of this: The ozone situation, which shows how an environmental factor is impacting prosperity, and therefore, the economists should broaden their definition of prosperity to account for such situations. So why would the author agree that the ozone stuff should be regarded as threatening (threatening? where did that come from?) and not contributing to prosperity - he just said that it did.

[stol1989]

Hi, I will try to help you

So why would the author agree that the ozone stuff should be regarded as threatening (threatening? where did that come from?) and not contributing to prosperity - he just said that it did.

Line 5 - However, critics point out that defining prosperity solely as function of monetary value is questionable since it fails to recognize other kinds of values...
For example, as earth ozone layer....

Everything in this paragraph after "For example" is illustrating how economist fail to recognize other kinds of values. It is not author's point of view. This is an example of economists' flawed reasoning. How is it flawed? It focuses solely on monetary value. From this perspective it bolsters prosperity. But it overlooks environmental health. It simply excludes it from consideration. Why is it bad? Do people really want this kind of prosperity when they are afraid to go outside without scafander?

[maryadkins]

So why would the author agree that the ozone stuff should be regarded as threatening (threatening? where did that come from?) and not contributing to prosperity - he just said that it did.

You're absolutely right that it contributes to prosperity under the traditional economists' definition, but under the critics' point of view"”which is what is being discussed at this point in the paragraph"”it doesn't. The critics believe that the ozone layer should be considered when evaluating prosperity, but this is very different than saying that the weakening of the ozone layer CONTRIBUTES to prosperity.

If anything, we're told that the weakening of the ozone layer is "troubling" (lines 14-15: "troubling reductions in environmental health and quality of life...") That's where to find support for the term "threatening" in Answer Choice (D).

Let me know if that's still unclear...

[kylejenna6]

Wondering why C isn't the answer. Isn't there an appearance of prosperity (sales of sunglasses, hats, etc.) that comes from the weakening of the ozone layer?

[chunsunb]

I think (C) is wrong because of the second part of the clause.
It is true that the problem has caused "the appearance of [economists' view of] prosperity"; but nowhere in the passage does it indicate that such appearance of prosperity "has directed attention away from solving [the problem]."

[dhlim3]

I don't understand why A is the wrong answer.

From the text:

Quality of Life + Environment Health -> Contribute directly to prosperity (This is something that the critic thinks with whom the author agrees)
Ozone Layer Weakens -> UV Radiation + Higher Expenditure -> Quality of Life and Environment Health Reduces


From the above logic, can't you conclude that Ozone Layer contributes to Prosperity (though negatively, it still is a contribution)?

[hanhansummer]

I chose C at first time, but convince myself that D should be the correct answer. Here is my understanding:

I agree with Stol1989 that the key to tackle this question lies on the main point of the article - some values are overlooked by those economics when they define prosperity solely as a function of monetary value.

Thus, analogous to the example of harvest limitation, the weakening ozone layer may generates some money, but it may damage the environment which human depend to live on [see line 32-33], and we may lose much more [see line 43]. Therefore, it doesn't lead us to true prosperity, but should be regarded primarily as threatening.

As for C, I think it wrongs because it takes a further step - shift attention from solving it, which is not mentioned in the article.