Q1 - The obsession of economists

[janicegyw]

I can eliminate all wrong answers, but the correct answer A also looks inaccurate to me.

The speaker says: the obsession of A theory prevent truly understanding B

Question: MP

Answer A: B cannot be defined/understood SOLELY in terms of A

I looked up in Webster, "obsession" is defined as a persistent disturbing preoccupation

From this definition, I cannot infer that obsession could mean only. And the stimulus does not tell us that consumption is the only measurement, probably they also used other non-significant ones.

or, it might not because of the word "obsession" ?...for example,

if we change the arguement as (delete obsession):
A theory prevent truly understanding B

is A still correct by saying: B cannot be defined/understood SOLELY in terms of A?

Thanks!

[janicegyw]

maybe my words are not clear enough...

so, i'd like to put it in another way. Which one of the following provides correct interpretation? (changed from the original arguement)


1.

The measure of economic well-being with consumption has prevented us from understanding the true nature of economic well-being.

---> Economic well-being cannot be defined SOLELY in
terms of consumption ?

(if this one is right, then choice A is more right.)

2.

The OBSESSION of economists with consumption as a
measure of economic well-being has prevented us from
understanding the true nature of economic well-being.

---> Economic well-being cannot be defined MAINLY in
terms of consumption ?

(if this one is right, then choice A is definitely wrong.)

Anyone can help to figure this out?

[mirroredshades]

From earlier:
I think you're interpreting the wording incorrectly.
The author states that economists view consumption as a measure of economic well-being and it is this preoccupation that prevents us from understanding the true nature of economic well-being (whatever that is). (A) perfectly captures the author's notion: that you cannot define economic well-being solely in terms of consumption.

It should probably look more like this:
The obsession with defining A in terms of B has prevented us from understanding what A truly is or ought to be.

Answer: A cannot be defined solely in terms of B.

Updated:

maybe my words are not clear enough...

so, i'd like to put it in another way. Which one of the following provides correct interpretation? (changed from the original arguement)


1.

The measure of economic well-being with consumption has prevented us from understanding the true nature of economic well-being.

---> Economic well-being cannot be defined SOLELY in
terms of consumption ?

(if this one is right, then choice A is more right.)

2.

The OBSESSION of economists with consumption as a
measure of economic well-being has prevented us from
understanding the true nature of economic well-being.

---> Economic well-being cannot be defined MAINLY in
terms of consumption ?

(if this one is right, then choice A is definitely wrong.)

First of all, I think you are still misinterpreting the sentence. I do not fully understand what you mean to say in point (1), "the measure of economic well-being with consumption". Also, (1) leaves out a pretty important keyword: obsession. The author does not say that consumption equals economic well-being, he does not even say that the economists do that; nor do either state it is the only measure (the author, in fact, cannot believe this). He says that it is one particular aspect that the economists are obsessed with. Maybe economists have many measures of economic well-being, but what good are they if they only focus (or obsess) on one?

As for the differences between "solely" and "mainly". I do not know what purpose this serves, since the answer clearly states that it is the "sole" measure. But, in either case, example (2) that you gave would still be correct, it's just a matter of degrees. If the author believes that economists are obsessing over one (as in sole) particular measure (consumption), then he must also believe that it is also the main measure which they obsess over. So the answer that you gave ("Economic well-being cannot be defined mainly in terms of consumption") is still right. Despite spurious semantic differences, it's just a matter of degrees. If something is a sole measure of something else, then it seems to logically follow that it is also the main measure. If it wasn't the main measure, then just what is it that the author believes the economists are obsessing about?

I'm not sure why you think that in example (2), (A) would be "definitely wrong". Remember: we are looking for the "best" answer. Why should (A) definitely be wrong, even if you changed that one word?

I looked up in Webster, "obsession" is defined as a persistent disturbing preoccupation

From this definition, I cannot infer that obsession could mean only. And the stimulus does not tell us that consumption is the only measurement, probably they also used other non-significant ones.

Neither the author, nor the economists he seems to criticize, says it is the only measure. In fact, the author cannot believe that it is, otherwise he wouldn't and couldn't arrive at his conclusion. So, by that reasoning alone, he must believe that it is not the sole definer of economic well-being. As for the economists, they could conceivably have other measures, but they are, according to the author, callously ignoring them to focus on a particular aspect, at the expense of discovering economic well-being's true nature. This seems to be summed up with (A).

Updated again:
Reword the sentence:
Economists are obsessed with using consumption to measure economic well-being.

From the stimulus we can assume that the author means to say that they are obsessing particularly over this one aspect: consumption. Even by your definition we can see this is bad, they are persistently disturbingly preoccupied with one thing. We can assume this because he mentions no other specific ways that these economists use to measure economic well-being (hence, the obsession), and because if it wasn't this particular (sole) aspect they were obsessing over, then what in the world is he complaining about? We can assume that he believes that there are other ways to measure economic well-being that the economists are ignoring, because they are obsessed with a particular one. If he did not have any other ways to measure the true nature of economic well-being, he wouldn't really have an argument, would he?

So, rewording the rest of the sentence:
Economists are obsessed with using consumption to measure economic well-being, but this particular aspect (that is, consumption) has prevented us from understanding economic well-being's true nature.

From this we can assume that he is saying that we cannot rely solely (and/or mainly) on this particular aspect, because such a reliance (or obsession, or what have you) does not give us the true picture of economic well-being. What about other measures that they are ignoring, while they busily obsess over this particular one? What about other measures that they might not even have considered before? In either case, it doesn't give us the full understanding.

[janicegyw]

Thanks so much mirror for your detailed explanation.

I read your words over and over again, and thought about it for quite a while...It is a mixtake of my logic.

You answered my question by discussing the outcome of replacing 'obssess' and 'solely'. And that is very helpful. Thanks.