Q4

[deedubbew]

Why not C? I know the word "relevance" is used instead of "irrelevance" but there could also be zero or no relevance. Thus, the economists could have been making the point that environmental health has no relevance to the useful concept of prosperity, since it must be quantifiable in order to be useful.

EDIT: after much thinking, I believe the C is wrong because the question asks how he defends, not what the defensive claim or conclusion is. C is the sub conclusion of the economists argument. A is the implied support that leads to the final conclusion that difficult to measure values should not be included.

[dchesmo]

Hi there,

Great question, and let me start with justifying the correct answer, which is A) "by claiming that alternative definitions of the concept would not be easily quantifiable". This is stated explicitly in lines 43-45, and this is the main response from the Economists the author states.

As for the remaining incorrect answers:

B) is incorrect since the economists would likely state the opposite! The passage states in lines 25-27 that since the residents are arguing against harvest limitations, which would "lower wages or even cause the loss of jobs", the residents are "implicitly adopting the economists' point of view.

C) The second sentence in lines 4-9 state that economists gauge a given nation's prosperity "solely as a function of monetary value". The key word if you didn't catch it is "solely" and thus the economists would NOT cite "the relevance of nonmonetary values." Also if you look back to line 45-46 the passage states the economists would not include "happiness" or "environmental health" in their viewpoints on prosperity. Hope this answers your question!

D) Out of scope especially since the third paragraph cites "the value of natural beauty" as support on behalf of the economists' critics.

E) Out of Scope, we don't see anything relevant on "historical development".

Daniel