Q16

[austindyoung]

Receptivity? Is this just because of the last sentence? With the 3rd paragraph in mind, especially lines 20-21, I found this hard to choose (and didn't).

What does the author means when she says "These two concepts... are opposed..."

I took that to mean that a large business promotes the invisible hand (these are the two that are actually opposed). Which is the Pin Factory model....

Any thoughts?

[tommywallach]

Hey Austin,

So the idea that the two notions are opposed means that they contradict each other , and mainstream economics has de-emphasized the Pin Factory (this is stated directly in lines 36-39).

The clearest line for 16 is probably 48-51: "Many economists tried repeatedly to bring the Pin Factory into the mainstream of economic thought to reflect the fact that increasing returns obviously characterized many enterprises..." This is the thesis of the Pin Factory. So the use of the word "obviously" makes it clear that the author of this passage thinks the Pin Factory model deserves a place in economic theory.

(A) Definitely not, as this is the opposite of the author's take.
(B) Tempting but not enough. If you look through the passage, you'll see that there's never uncertainty on the part of the author, only economists in general.
(C) Again, the author doesn't say more research needs to be done, but that the Pin Factory is obviously relevant.
(D) Similar to (A).

Hope that helps!

-t

[austindyoung]

Tommy, thanks for the super-clear explanation. I actually left this PT at home and don't have it in front of me, but I do remember the part you are referring to.

I was confused because I took the "obviously" to refer to the sentiments of the pro-Pin economists.

I'm going to read it again and come back to it- but from what you put that does seem like the tipping point- "obviously" referring not to the sentiments of the economists', but rather a "factual aside," if you will, as to the author's opinion. It was just hard to capture this because it is such a limited instance of opinion, and usually a "feel" for the author's opinion can me sensed.

So, I'll read this passage again. Thank you again!

[JorieB701]

I got this right, only briefly considering D over E but was wondering what would constitute “indifference” if it could properly be attributed to an author in regards to an ‘attitude’ in RC. Would they legit need to say something like, “but that doesn’t matter” or “we shouldn’t be concerned with that?” What about C-“curiosity?”
I honestly went with E, trusting myself in a PT despite having located a specific line reference to prove it, largely because I was thinking the author definitely didn’t give any indication that they thought it was a BAD idea and I just didn’t think “indifference” made sense because it was a main focus of the passage as a whole. I trusted myself without looking back in this case because I was pretty confident but could this approach get me into trouble down the road? (Thanks in advance for attempting to elaborate on what’s clearly an “it depends” answer)

[ohthatpatrick]

Historically, the correct answer to attitude questions has always been a solid positive, mild positive, mild negative, or solid negative.

It’s never been an extreme positive, extreme negative, or totally neutral (as far as I can remember).

So your instincts were solid that ‘indifferent’ would be fishy. You could certainly say ‘detached’ if the author just expressed zero opinion.

But they just don’t tend to offer an Attitude question when the author is truly neutral.

Indifferent is weirder than detached, since detached can be supported by “lack of opinion”, but indifference is (as you implied) a slightly more dismissive tone of “I don’t care”. I suppose if you had an author explaining that SOME CRITICS worry about X, and then the author said, “But whether or not X is true is beside the point”, then you could get indifferent.