PS Full-Length Course Lesson 2 June 2005 Test Question 2

[milanproda@me.com]

Hello,

After going through the first passage in the homework for Lesson 2, I incorrectly chose answer choice D (The correct answer was C). The answers in the text were very brief, and I was hoping to find a more in-depth explanation as to why D is wrong.

The critics conclude that the poor rural community (mentioned in lines 17-44) had a monetary value attached to their community. The critics also mentioned that the deforestation would damage the natural beauty of the town. I assume that if there is a monetary value attached to the town, then limits on deforestion would decrease that value.

Furthermore, the author of the passage does not mention any advantages in the passage. He just mentions that things could be worse if the town decided to continue with deforestation. Things can be WORSE* or the SAME*.

Thank you for the help,

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question. Keep in mind that this one concerns the critics view, and in their mind, the economists' view "overlooks a crucial consideration." In the critics view, the author tells us on line 42, "The community will thus lose much more--even understood in monetary terms--if the proposed harvest limits are not implemented." This confirms C as the correct answer choice.

The problem with answer choice D is that the author does not provide sufficient information to determine what the protesting communities do and don't know.

Let me know whether that clears this one up--thanks!

~Steve

[milanproda@me.com]

Thanks for your response. I now see why D is wrong.

Answer C claims that the advantages of limits outweight the disadvantages. I do not see anywhere in the passage where advantages are talked about, or even hinted. To conclude that there are advantages to limits of timber use would be way way out of scope IMO.

[Steve Stein]

The author does seem to suggest that the good outweighs the bad, but puts it this way: ...critics conclude that their location has substantial monetary value to them. The community will thus lose much more--even understood in monetary terms--if the proposed harvest limitations are not implemented.

Let me know whether that makes this one any clearer--thanks!

~Steve

[milanproda@me.com]

Thanks for the explanation Steve. I do not mean to be too picky, but I cannot see how that can be understood as an Advantage.

As an analogy: If we implement Law X, crime in this country will increase.

This does not mean that if we do not implement Law X that crime will go down. If we do not implement Law X, then crime MAY* go down, or it MAY* stay the same. We cannot conclude which one will happen.

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Thanks for your question.

Critics conclude that their location has substantial monetary value to them. The community will thus lose much more--even understood in monetary terms--if the proposed harvest limitations are not implemented.

If these same communities can avoid losing that location that they value so much, that would be properly termed advantageous.

Please let me know whether that clears this one up.

~Steve

[milanproda@me.com]

Thanks Steve, I appreciate your help.