#5 - Specific reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function

[Etsevdos]

I narrowed to A & E. choose A because lines 52-56, "as the sole indicator...do well according to human indicators". This suggests to me a synthesis of both. How do we rule A out?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi Etsevdos,

This is a tough question designed to really test you about your understanding of the concepts offered in all the paragraphs. I see your point about your citation for the idea that there is a "synthesis" occurring in the last paragraph, however, the sentence goes on with "even if their per capita..." That does not suggest synthesis. It suggests that the author really considers one viewpoint superior to the other. Specifically, the viewpoint of the nations that are considering the factors beyond the mere GNP of a given nation. Also the word "opposing" used in Answer Option (A) should have also given you some pause as the ideas are not truly with opposition to one another. In fact, the group that is arguing to adopt more factors seems to be taking GNP into account but just not emphasizing it to the degree that the other group does. Thus, (E) is the superior choice here.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!

[Etsevdos]

Thanks for explanation!

[rhaus1]

What does the answer choice, "offer a synthesis of the opposing positions outlined in the first two paragraphs" actually mean? i too thought it was answer choice A, and i thought i knew what it meant and that it applies correctly. But, now i'm not sure

[Claire Horan]

Hi Rhaus,

Synthesizing two positions means combining them. For answer choice A, you should first ask whether there are two opposing positions, and then whether the opposing positions are being combined to create a new position. As nicholaspavic pointed out, the two viewpoints are not really in opposition. But if they were, you would consider whether elements of each were taken to create a new viewpoint. If the author's purpose were to synthesize two ideas, the passage might say something like, "Viewpoint A has _____ pros and cons. Viewpoint B has _____ pros and cons. Neither is adequate. My thesis, Viewpoint C takes aspects of both and is therefore superior."

I hope this helps!

[claudiagarin]

Could someone please explain to me why C is wrong and why E is correct?
I don't see the policy implications here

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Claudia,

Answer choice C is wrong, because a "summary" paragraph will stick to rehashing the concepts already discussed in previous paragraphs and won't raise any new subjects. The final paragraph of this passage raises the new subject of what "some nations" are doing with "their domestic economic efforts." This is a factual claim about what is happening in nations based on the theoretical discussion in prior paragraphs. Since this focus on what "some nations" are doing is new material, the final paragraph cannot be just a "summary" of the prior argument.

"Policy implications" refers to the implications that the "human indicators" theory has for national economic policies. So when the last paragraph begins by talking about some nations' "[d]omestic economic efforts," those efforts are the policies that those nations implement to boost their economies. Similarly, when the passage discusses the nations trying to "ensur[e] that the conditions measured by human indicators are salutary," it's discussing something that involves policy steps. Even though the last paragraph doesn't describe those steps with specificity, they are being discussed in a general way that makes answer choice E an accurate description.

I hope this helps!

[PresidentLSAT]

Ok so I see the mistake I made by choosing C.

The actions nations are taking -for which the overall end goal is to ensure economic health of the country is- to ignore GNP and focus on human indicators. Countries who have resorted to GNP as a policy adaption may be in danger; say unequal distribution of wealth, the elimination of the middle class, a discriminatory healthcare system etc...

Could you please see if C would be close to correct if the conclusion was like this:

"Economists may be right about GNP being a reliable indicator of a country's welfare. Some nations like the United States, Canada, and Germany report substantial improvements in the quality of life by individuals as GNP continues to rises. However, this isn't the case for other countries. The format of governance, socialism and heavily regulated economies posit almost no impact of GNP on the lives of citizens. The complexities of governance in these countries have made human indicators the best measure of a thriving economy. Both human educators and GNP can measure the quality of live of individuals in a country."

Ok after writing this^^^, it reads more like a synthesis or reconciliation of both views instead of a summary. Am I somewhat close lol?

[Adam Tyson]

Somewhat, yes. But the argument the author makes is that GNP is not a good indicator of well being. See the language in the second paragraph that starts with "But, in actuality..." (second sentence)? That's the clue that the author is about to argue that those economists are wrong, and that there is a problem with their approach.

So, if the last paragraph was just a summary of that argument, it would simply restate the position that GNP is the wrong way to go because of the things it fails to include.

Instead, prephrase this. In your own words, what is the last paragraph doing? Mine was "showing us the effects of some nations accepting this argument." It's about the practical, real-world consequences of a change in viewpoint, and not just an academic discussion. For that reason, answer E stands head and shoulders above the rest.

[lsatquestions]

I also picked C and had E as a contender. While I now see why C is incorrect, I had eliminated E because of the word "implications." I recognized that the directing economic efforts = policy but I didn't see where in the paragraph the author discussed the actual implications of implementing such a policy.