PrepTest 106

Topic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Steady-state economics, a new school of economic thought, offers an alternative to neoclassical economics
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Neoclassical economics: dominates Western economic thought
    • Holds that economy is a closed system with no noneconomic constraints (second - third sentences)
    • Growth is limitless (third sentence)
    • Growth is crucial to eliminating economic problems that arise (fourth sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “seriously challenged” (first sentence); “reigning school” (first sentence); “circular flow” (second sentence); “no noneconomic constraints” (third sentence); “some argue “ (fourth sentence); “they claim” (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Steady-state economics holds that economy is limited by natural resources and has an optimal size
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Natural resources enter and exit economy; economy grows, stagnates, or shrinks depending on availability of resources (second sentence)
  • Because natural resources are limited, there is an optimal size to the economy beyond which cost to nature is greater than benefit to people (third sentence)
  • Economy should be maintained in equilibrium with nature (fourth sentence)
  • Neoclassical economists hold that, if natural resources are depleted, human-made resources can be substituted (fifth sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “unrealistic” (first sentence); “they argue” (second sentence); “nature’s limited capacity” (third sentence); “optimal size” (third sentence); “dangerous” (fourth sentence); “only alternative” (fourth sentence); “equilibrium with nature” (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Steady-state economists propose that conservation can be used to satisfy human wants without using more natural resources
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Steady-state economists:
    • Disparity b/w monetary value of goods/services and sustainable personal consumption (first sentence)
    • Western economies already larger than optimal size (first sentence)
      • End economic growth by using conservation (second-third sentence)
      • Conservation through recycling is still qualitative growth; is not quantitative (fourth sentence)
    • Successful steady-state economy will conserve without growth, while still meeting human wants (fifth sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “widening disparity” (first sentence); “already exceeded” (first sentence); “alternatives to growth” (second sentence); “differs from growth in that it is qualitative, not quantitative” (fourth sentence); “success of a steady-state economy” (fifth sentence)

Main Point: Steady-state economics, which holds that Western economies are limited by nature and should opt to conserve rather than grow white still satisfying human wants, presents an alternative to neoclassical economics, which holds that economies are not limited by nature and should aim to grow as much as possible.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1 S1) - Steady-state vs. neoclassical economics

P2 S4 - Steady state economists: economy must be in equilibrium with nature

P3 S1 - SS economists: Western economies already larger than they should be

P3 S4 - SS economists: conserve resources rather than grow economy

Describing a Debate: This passage highlights the points at which steady-state economic thinking and neoclassical economic thinking clash, principally, the degree to which Western economies are limited by natural resources and the optimal goal of economic activity (growth vs. conservation/recycling). The author of the passage first summarizes neoclassical economic thinking. According to neoclassicists, the economy is not limited by any noneconomic factors, and the major goal of participants in the economy should be to maximize growth. The author then lays out the steady-state economic model: the economy is limited by the availability of natural resources and Western economies have already grown beyond their optimal size. Thus, peoples’ economic goal should be to conserve resources by recycling rather than to use more natural resources because nature can’t replenish them as fast as humans use them.

The debate, then, is this: neoclassicists say that the economy is not too big and it should continue to grow while steady-staters say the economy is too big and should not continue to grow. The reason steady-staters give for their position is that natural resources are being depleted too fast.

The minor Meta-Structure used in this passage is Comparison. The author is continually comparing neoclassical economics with steady-state economics; indeed, it is the contrast with neoclassical economics that helps give steady-state economics its character.

The author’s own position is hinted at throughout the passage and particularly in P3 S5, where the author implies that it is possible to conserve resources by recycling and still to satisfy human wants, thus proving that an economy can be considered successful, even in a steady (or stagnant) state. However, these hints are not enough to tip this passage over into the “Resolving a Debate” Meta-Structure, because the author does not explicitly take a side in the debate or try to reconcile the two sides of the issue.

This passage can be thought of as a bit of a hybrid, or a Resolving a Debate Plus. The “plus” is the hint that the author gives as to their perspective in P2 S4 (referring to the neoclassical model as “dangerous” and asserting that living in harmony with nature is the “only alternative” to the current model) and P3 S4 (referring to the fact that conservation constitutes qualitative rather than quantitative progress and leads to increased efficiency of resource use). Though all of these references are ostensibly the author referring to the views of steady-state economists rather than giving their own opinion, the language is strong, especially the word “dangerous,” and it is possible to infer that the author inclines to the steady-state model. We can be even more sure of this when we remember that in P1 S1, the author said that steady-state economics “seriously challenged” neoclassical economics.

That said, the author’s opinion is not explicit enough to reclassify this passage as either Resolving a Debate or Old Approach/New Approach.