#3 - Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[magicmaze]

I incorrectly chose C for this question when I initially chose D. I felt like D was "too simple," but in hindsight, I suppose true prosperity refers to a definition that includes more than just monetary value, which would make this answer correct. I chose C because (1) there is an appearance of prosperity with the sale of sunglasses/other goods pushing up the money numbers and (2) in the last paragraph, the passage mentions that only looking at prosperity in easily quantifiable terms means "disregard[ing] substantive issues that influence real prosperity." Wouldn't this disregarding direct attention away from solving the problem?

I have previously gotten questions wrong when I have been too fixated on one part of the passage and not noticing lines that come after, so I was quite satisfied with the answer choice switch in the moment. I suppose the disregarding discussed in the last paragraph does not directly affect the ozone layer issue, but it seems like the issue might be included in that broader discussion.

[katehos]

Hi magicmaze!

Let's start by talking more about your rationale for picking (C). First, while the passage does reference the sale of hats and other items increasing as the ozone layer weakens, the author does not say that bolsters the appearance of prosperity, but rather these sales bolster actual prosperity under the economists' definition (lines 16-17). Additionally, there's no mention of the "appearance of prosperity" that results from these sales turning people away from the issue of ozone depletion (i.e. the author does not go so far as to say that people fail to advance environmental solutions upon learning that economists believe these sales increased prosperity).

The last paragraph does reference how case of calculation "causes one to disregard substantive issues that directly influence real prosperity", but this does not mean the author is saying that people entirely ignore issues such as ozone depletion, rather, it means that this definition ignores important issues such as ozone depletion in its calculation of prosperity. This entire passage is about the issues with a certain definition of prosperity and why the author believes "real prosperity" is influenced by issues such as the environment.

Basically, it comes down to the difference between regular people actually ignoring issues like the health of the environment and the economists' definition of prosperity failing to take issues such as environmental health into account. It's definitely important to ensure that you understand the passage in its entirety (and, as you mentioned, sometimes being too fixated on one specific part of the passage can cause you to ignore important information), just make sure to really focus on what the author is saying! In this case, the author directly states that "emphasizing case of calculation causes one to disregard substantive issues that directly influence real prosperity", which lines up nicely with answer choice (D) for the reasons mentioned by other instructors!

I hope this helps
Kate

[ellenolmore]

Hello,

For this question I chose A. Why is it D instead of A? They sound similar to me, maybe that is why I am confused.

Best,
Ellen

[Luke Haqq]

Hi ellenolmore!

For this question, the relevant material is around lines 10 to 17, where the passage discusses the earth's ozone layer. In that context, "troubling reductions in environmental health" (lines 14-15) can end up contributing to economic activity and what seems to be prosperity. Given that language, we know that the author sees the ozone layer weakening as "troubling."

The question stem asks about what the author would agree with regarding the ozone layer weakening, and answer choice (D) states, "This problem should be regarded primarily as threatening rather than contributing to true prosperity." Towards the end of the first paragraph where it's discussed, the author is discussing "prosperity" as measured by purchases of hats, sunglasses, and sunscreen, which isn't really measuring "true prosperity" but rather just people taking actions to deal with the ozone layer weakening. This is why (D) is correct.

Answer choice (A) states, "Paradoxically, the weakening of the ozone layer actually contributes to environmental health and quality of life." This isn't supported by the passage's discussion of the ozone layer. That portion of the passage states, "In this way, troubling reductions in environmental health and quality of life may in fact initiate economic activity that, by the economists' measure, bolsters prosperity" (lines 14-17). The author certainly isn't saying here that the weakening of the ozone layer contributes to environmental health and quality of life. If anything, the author suggests the opposite--this is a problem because it harms environmental health and doesn't really improve quality of life.