Reading comp PrepTest 119 · Section 1 · Question 2

Topic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Debate is introduced - Economists vs. Critics/Author
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Economists - Prosperity is measure of $
  • Critics - Bad definition, ignores other things (quality of life, environment)
  • Example - Ozone layer weakening
    • Critics/Author - Troubling reduction in quality of life
    • Economists - Great! more hats sold

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Generalization/Intro example (Community/Econ viewpoint)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Generalization - Trying to make $ cn decrease community’s quality of life
  • Example - Rural community that relies on timber fought against limits
  • This reflects Economists’ view

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Example continued (Critics response)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Residents value natural beauty which will be hurt without harvest limits
  • They’d move elsewhere to make more $ if they valued it more
  • Even in $ terms, the community loses more without limits

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Economists defend view; Author rebuts
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Economists - $ is easily quantifiable, so best to define prosperity with it
  • Author - Dodges question to make it “easy”
  • Analogy - Lit critic who just looks at copies sold instead of analyzing book

Main Point: By focusing solely on economic value when defining prosperity, economists miss a lot of what most people think of when they think of the concept, as can be seen in examples of people valuing things other than money.

Lines 1-4 - One viewpoint

Lines 5-9 - An opposing view

Line 10 - An example highlighting the debate (Author takes Critics’ side)

Lines 18-21 - Generalization

Lines 21-22 - Extended example introduced (reinforces earlier views)

Lines 49-52 - Author’s view on Economists stated

Line 52 - Analogy introduced

Generalization/Example - The passage here presents two examples, both of which are meant to highlight general principles that the Author argues for. The first generalization shows up in Paragraph 1, where the Critics argue that defining prosperity just in monetary terms misses a lot of relevant factors (Lines 5-9). This is backed up by the example of ozone thinning, which would hurt quality of life but sell a lot of goods. The Author aligns with the critics here (Line 14 - “troubling”). She then goes on to present another generalization in Lines 18-21, arguing that trying to maximize money can decrease prosperity. This is backed up by an example of a rural town that relies on lumber, an extended example that serves as the basis for the rest of the passage. When a passage falls into this Meta-Structure, the Author’s generalization generally makes up the main point. Here, the two examples largely align in supporting similar generalizations - the definition of prosperity put forward by the economists that relies on monetary value is too limited - and our main point reflects that.

Criticize/Rebut a View - The Author doesn’t put forward her view (and that of the critics) as existing in a vacuum. In fact, by framing it as the view of “critics” of a viewpoint, the Author is inherently setting up that argument as a rebuttal to another viewpoint. Since this central rebuttal makes up the main argument of the passage, the main point should reflect that the Author isn’t arguing for her stance, but rather is presenting it as an argument against another viewpoint, as our main point highlights.

There’s one sentence that’s interesting and will very likely lead to a question - Lines 42-44. There, the Author is rebutting the view of the economists, but she frames it as dealing with the “monetary terms” that those economists are using. This is interesting as the broader point is that focusing on monetary value misses a lot of things that are important to prosperity. Here, the author is showing how this one example runs counter to what the economists argue even when using their definition. Such unexpected arguments tend to get asked about, so let’s be sure to keep our eyes open for a question about it.