CAT — Economics & Society RC
16 questions, free to view. Click any question to see the answer and explanation.
. . . [T]he idea of craftsmanship is not simply nostalgic. . . . Crafts require distinct skills, an allround approach to work that involves the whole product, rather than individual parts, and an attitude that necessitates devotion to the job and a focus on the communal interest. The concept of craft emphasises the human touch and individual judgment. Essentially, the crafts concept seems to run against the preponderant ethos of management studies which, as the academics note, have long prioritised efficiency and consistency. . . . Craft skills were portrayed as being primitive and traditionalist.
The contrast between artisanship and efficiency first came to the fore in the 19th century when British manufacturers suddenly faced competition from across the Atlantic as firms developed the "American system" using standardised parts. . . . the worldwide success of the Singer sewing machine showed the potential of a mass-produced device. This process created its own reaction, first in the form of the Arts and Crafts movement of the late 19th century, and then again in the "small is beautiful" movement of the 1970s. A third crafts movement is emerging as people become aware of the environmental impact of conventional industry.
There are two potential markets for those who practise crafts. The first stems from the existence of consumers who are willing to pay a premium price for goods that are deemed to be of extra quality. . . . The second market lies in those consumers who wish to use their purchases to support local workers, or to reduce their environmental impact by taking goods to craftspeople to be mended, or recycled.
For workers, the appeal of craftsmanship is that it allows them the autonomy to make creative choices, and thus makes a job far more satisfying. In that sense, it could offer hope for the overall labour market. Let the machines automate dull and repetitive tasks and let workers focus purely on their skills, judgment and imagination. As a current example, the academics cite the "agile" manifesto in the software sector, an industry at the heart of technological change. The pioneers behind the original agile manifesto promised to prioritise "individuals and interactions over processes and tools". By bringing together experts from different teams, agile working is designed to improve creativity.
But the broader question is whether crafts can create a lot more jobs than they do today. Demand for crafted products may rise but will it be easy to retrain workers in sectors that might get automated (such as truck drivers) to take advantage? In a world where products and services often have to pass through regulatory hoops, large companies will usually have the advantage.
History also suggests that the link between crafts and creativity is not automatic. Medieval craft guilds were monopolies which resisted new entrants. They were also highly hierarchical with young men required to spend long periods as apprentices and journeymen before they could set up on their own; by that time the innovative spirit may have been knocked out of them. Craft workers can thrive in the modern era, but only if they don't get too organised.
We can infer from the passage that medieval crafts guilds resembled mass production in that both:
did not necessarily promote creativity.
discouraged innovation by restricting entry through strict rules.
did not always employ egalitarian production processes.
focused excessively on product quality.
did not necessarily promote creativity.
The passage states that medieval craft guilds were hierarchical, with long apprenticeships that may have knocked the innovative spirit out of young workers by the time they could set up on their own. This shows that guilds, despite being associated with crafts, did not necessarily foster creativity, just as mass production, focused on efficiency and consistency, also does not necessarily promote creativity. Both systems, in their own way, suppressed individual creative input.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: Mass production is not described in the passage as restricting entry, this is a feature specific to guilds, not something shared by both.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: The passage does not discuss egalitarian production processes for either guilds or mass production, this is not the basis of comparison being drawn.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: Mass production is associated with efficiency and consistency, not necessarily an excessive focus on quality, so this is not a shared trait between the two systems.
Why Option A is Correct: Both guilds and mass production are shown to not necessarily encourage creativity, guilds through their hierarchical apprenticeship structure, and mass production through its prioritisation of efficiency over individual judgment.
Key Takeaway: When comparing two systems mentioned in a passage, identify the precise shared outcome the passage implies, rather than assuming surface-level similarities that aren't explicitly supported.
Which one of the following statements is NOT inconsistent with the views stated in the passage?
We need to support the crafts; only then can we retain the creativity intrinsic to their production.
Creativity in the crafts could be stifled if the market for artisan goods becomes too organised.
The Arts and Crafts movement was initially inspired by the "American system" of production.
The agile movement in software is a throwback to the tenets of the medieval crafts guilds.
Creativity in the crafts could be stifled if the market for artisan goods becomes too organised.
The passage ends by stating that craft workers can thrive in the modern era only if they don't get too organised, drawing on the example of guilds becoming monopolistic and hierarchical. This directly supports the idea that an overly organised market for crafts could stifle the very creativity crafts are meant to nurture.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: The passage does not suggest that support for crafts is the only way to retain creativity, it instead cautions that crafts and creativity are not automatically linked, especially if crafts become too organised.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: The passage states the Arts and Crafts movement was a reaction against the American system of standardised mass production, not inspired by it.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: The agile movement is presented as a positive contrast to the hierarchical structure of medieval guilds, not as a throwback to their tenets.
Why Option B is Correct: This aligns directly with the passage's closing caution that craft workers can thrive only if they avoid becoming too organised, implying that excessive organisation could stifle creativity.
Key Takeaway: For "not inconsistent" questions, find the option that directly echoes a specific claim in the passage rather than one that contradicts or misattributes a causal relationship.
The author questions the ability of crafts to create substantial employment opportunities presently because:
the low scale of crafts production will not be able to absorb the mass of redundant labour.
regulatory requirements could make it difficult for small crafts outfits to compete.
workers made redundant by automation are unlikely to opt for crafts-related work.
crafts guilds tend to resist new entrants and are unlikely to accept large numbers of trainees.
regulatory requirements could make it difficult for small crafts outfits to compete.
The passage states that in a world where products and services often have to pass through regulatory hoops, large companies will usually have the advantage, implying small crafts outfits will struggle to compete under such regulatory requirements, limiting their ability to scale up and create substantial employment.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: The passage does not frame the issue in terms of absorption capacity for redundant labour directly, it specifically raises regulatory hurdles as the structural challenge.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: The passage raises a question about whether workers in automated sectors can be retrained for crafts, but this is posed as an open question, not stated as the reason the author doubts crafts' employment potential.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: This refers to a separate historical point about guilds resisting new entrants, not the specific present-day employment concern the author raises about regulatory hoops favouring large companies.
Why Option B is Correct: This matches the passage's specific point about regulatory hoops giving large companies an advantage, directly explaining the author's doubt about crafts' ability to create substantial employment.
Key Takeaway: Locate the exact reasoning given in the passage for a stated doubt or concern, rather than a plausible but unstated alternative explanation.
The most recent revival in interest in the crafts is a result of the emergence of all of the following EXCEPT:
support for individual creations as opposed to mass-produced objects.
concerns about the environmental impact of mass production.
a niche market for discerning buyers of quality products.
a greater interest in buying locally produced goods.
support for individual creations as opposed to mass-produced objects.
The passage attributes the most recent crafts revival specifically to growing awareness of the environmental impact of conventional industry. Support for individual creations over mass-produced objects is mentioned earlier as a general appeal of crafts and a separate market category, not specifically as the cause of the most recent revival.
Why Option B is
Incorrect (as a candidate for the exception): The passage explicitly attributes the emerging third crafts movement to environmental impact concerns about conventional industry.
Why Option C is
Incorrect (as a candidate for the exception): The passage explicitly mentions a market of consumers willing to pay a premium for quality goods, a niche market for discerning buyers, as one of the existing reasons crafts persist.
Why Option D is
Incorrect (as a candidate for the exception): The passage explicitly mentions consumers wanting to support local workers as one of the markets driving interest in crafts.
Why Option A is Correct: Support for individual creations over mass production is a general, ongoing appeal of crafts mentioned earlier in the passage, not specifically identified as a cause of the most recent revival, making it the exception.
Key Takeaway: Distinguish between general, long-standing appeals of a phenomenon and the specific, recent causes the passage attributes to its latest resurgence.
Oftentimes, when economists cross borders, they are less interested in learning from others than in invading their garden plots. Gary Becker, for instance, pioneered the idea of human capital. To do so, he famously tackled topics like crime and domesticity, applying methods honed in the study of markets to domains of nonmarket life. He projected economics outward into new realms: for example, by revealing the extent to which humans calculate marginal utilities when choosing their spouses or stealing from neighbors. At the same time, he did not let other ways of thinking enter his own economic realm: for example, he did not borrow from anthropology or history or let observations of nonmarket economics inform his homo economicus. Becker was a picture of the imperial economist in the heyday of the discipline's bravura.
Times have changed for the once almighty discipline. Economics has been taken to task, within and beyond its ramparts. Some economists have reached out, imported, borrowed, and collaborated—been less imperial, more open. Consider Thomas Piketty and his outreach to historians. The booming field of behavioral economics—the fusion of economics and social psychology—is another case. Having spawned active subfields, like judgment, decisionmaking and a turn to experimentation, the field aims to go beyond the caricature of Rational Man to explain how humans make decisions….
It is important to underscore how this flips the way we think about economics. For generations, economists have presumed that people have interests—"preferences," in the neoclassical argot—that get revealed in the course of peoples' choices. Interests come before actions and determine them. If you are hungry, you buy lunch; if you are cold, you get a sweater. If you only have so much money and can't afford to deal with both your growling stomach and your shivering, which need you choose to meet using your scarce savings reveals your preference.
Psychologists take one look at this simple formulation and shake their heads. Increasingly, even some mainstream economists have to admit that homo economicus doesn't always behave like the textbook maximizer; irrational behavior can't simply be waved away as extraeconomic expressions of passions over interests, and thus the domain of other disciplines…. This is one place where the humanist can help the economist. If narrative economics is going to help us understand how rivals duke it out, who wins and who loses, we are going to need much more than lessons from epidemiological studies of viruses or intracranial stimuli.
Above all, we need politics and institutions. Shiller [the Nobel prize winning economist] connects perceptions of narratives to changes in behavior and thence to social outcomes. He completes a circle that was key to behavioral economics and brings in storytelling to make sense of how perceptions get framed. This cycle (perception to behavior to society) was once mediated or dominated by institutions: the political parties, lobby groups, and media organizations that played a vital role in legitimating, representing, and excluding interests. Yet institutions have been stripped from Shiller's account, to reveal a bare dynamic of emotions and economics, without the intermediating place of politics.
We can infer from the passage that the term "homo economicus" refers to someone who:
is not influenced by the preferences and choices of others.
believes in borrowing and collaborating with other disciplines in their work.
makes rational decisions based on their own preferences.
maximises their opportunities based on nonmarket choices.
makes rational decisions based on their own preferences.
The passage explains that the term refers to a model in economics where people's interests, or preferences, come before and determine their actions and choices, which is essentially the idea of the rational maximiser making decisions based on personal preferences.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: The passage does not characterise homo economicus through independence from others' preferences, the discussion centres on a person's own preferences driving their own choices.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: This is the opposite of homo economicus, the passage shows homo economicus as a closed, self-contained model resistant to incorporating other disciplines, like in Becker's imperial approach to economics.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: The passage describes homo economicus through market-based rational decision making, not specifically through nonmarket choices, which is rather Becker's broader application of economic reasoning to nonmarket domains.
Why Option C is Correct: This matches the passage's explanation, that interests determine choices, with the classic example given being the trade-off between buying lunch or a sweater based on one's own preferences.
Key Takeaway: Define a term strictly based on the passage's own explanation, rather than associations from the surrounding context that describe related but distinct ideas.
"Times have changed for the once almighty discipline." We can infer from this statement and the associated paragraph that the author is being:
sarcastic about how economists, who earlier shunned other disciplines, are now beginning to incorporate them in their analyses.
disparaging of economists' inability to precisely predict market behaviour, and are now borrowing from other disciplines to remedy this.
judgemental about the ability of economic tools to accurately manage crises leading to the downfall of this lofty science.
critical of economists' openly borrowing and collaborating across disciplines to explain how humans make decisions.
sarcastic about how economists, who earlier shunned other disciplines, are now beginning to incorporate them in their analyses.
The phrase "once almighty discipline" carries an ironic tone, highlighting how economics, which once resisted outside influence under figures like Becker, is now embracing collaboration with other disciplines like history and psychology. The tone is sarcastic about this shift in posture from imperial dominance to openness.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: The author's point is not about economists' inability to predict markets, but about their changing openness to other disciplines, this option misattributes the reason for the shift.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: This frames the tone as judgemental about economic tools failing during crises, which is not the focus of this specific statement or paragraph, the paragraph is about disciplinary openness, not crisis management failure.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: This claims the author is critical of the new collaborative approach, but the broader passage actually treats this shift positively as something that helps economics, especially through behavioral economics.
Why Option A is Correct: This captures the sarcastic tone toward how a once insular, imperial discipline is now embracing the very disciplines it had previously shunned.
Key Takeaway: Identify tone by closely reading the specific word choices, like "once almighty," which signal irony about a reversal in attitude or behaviour.
The author critiques Shiller's approach to behavioural economics for:
ignoring the marginal role that media and politics play in influencing people's behaviour.
denigrating the role of institutions while creating a link between behavioural economics and perceptions.
linking emotions and rational behaviour without considering the mediation of social institutions.
relying excessively on storytelling as the main influence on the formation of perceptions.
linking emotions and rational behaviour without considering the mediation of social institutions.
The author critiques Shiller specifically for stripping institutions out of his account, leaving only a bare dynamic of emotions and economics without the mediating role that politics and institutions traditionally played between perception, behaviour and society.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: The passage does not say Shiller ignores a "marginal role" of media and politics, it specifically says institutions have been stripped entirely from his account, a stronger claim than just a marginal role being ignored.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: This is close but reverses the framing slightly, the critique is that Shiller links perceptions to behaviour while removing institutions, not that he denigrates institutions while still creating the link, the issue is the absence of institutional mediation itself.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: The critique is not about excessive reliance on storytelling itself, storytelling is presented as a useful tool, the actual critique is about the missing institutional mediation in the overall framework.
Why Option C is Correct: This precisely matches the passage's critique, that Shiller connects emotions and economic behaviour without the mediating role of political and social institutions that once linked perception, behaviour and society.
Key Takeaway: When a critique involves an omission, focus on exactly what is said to be missing from the model, rather than rephrasing it as a different kind of flaw.
In the first paragraph the author is making the point that economists like Becker:
benefitted from the application of their principles and concepts to non-economic phenomena.
had begun to borrow concepts from other disciplines but were averse to the latter applying economic principles.
used economics to analyse non-market behaviour, without incorporating perspectives from other areas of inquiry.
tended to guard their discipline from poaching by academics from other subject areas.
used economics to analyse non-market behaviour, without incorporating perspectives from other areas of inquiry.
The passage describes how Becker applied economic methods to nonmarket domains like crime and domesticity, projecting economics outward, but did not let other disciplines like anthropology or history inform his own economic thinking, keeping the discipline closed in one direction.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: The passage does not focus on whether Becker personally benefited from this one-directional application, it focuses on the imbalance of borrowing.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: This reverses the passage's claim, Becker did not borrow from other disciplines at all, he only exported economic methods outward without importing ideas back.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: The passage does not describe Becker as guarding against other academics studying economic topics, it describes him as unwilling to incorporate non-economic perspectives into his own analysis, a different point.
Why Option C is Correct: This matches the passage's description of Becker analysing nonmarket behaviour, like crime and marriage, using economic tools, while never importing insights from other disciplines into his economic thinking.
Key Takeaway: Pay attention to the direction of intellectual exchange described in a passage, exporting one's own methods is different from refusing to import others' methods, and a precise answer should reflect exactly which direction is being criticised.
Moutai has been the global booze sensation of the decade. A bottle of its Flying Fairy, which sold in the 1980s for the equivalent of a dollar, now retails for $400. Moutai's listed shares have soared by almost 600% in the past five years, outpacing the likes of Amazon ...
It does this while disregarding every Western marketing mantra. It is not global, has meagre digital sales and does not appeal to millennials. It scores pitifully on environmental, social and government measures. In the Boy Scout world of Western business, it would leave a bad taste in more ways than one.
Moutai owes its intoxicating success to three factors—not all of them easy to emulate. First, it profits from Chinese nationalism. Moutai is known as the "national liquor". It was used to raise spirits and disinfect wounds in Mao's Long March. It was Premier Zhou Enlai's favourite tipple, shared with Richard Nixon in 1972. Its centuries-old craftsmanship—it is distilled eight times and stored for years in earthenware jars—is a source of national pride. It also claims to be hangover-proof, which would make it an invention to rival gunpowder ...
Second, it chose to serve China's super-rich rather than its middle class. Markets are littered with the corpses of firms that could not compete in the cut-throat battle for Chinese middle-class wallets. And the country's premium market is massive—at 73m-strong, bigger than the population of France, notes Euan McLeish of Bernstein, an investment firm, and still less crowded with prestige brands than advanced economies. Moutai is to these well-heeled drinkers what vintage champagne is to the rest of the world ...
Third, Moutai looks beyond affluent millennials and digital natives. The elderly and the middle-aged, it found, can be just as lucrative. Its biggest market now is (male) drinkers in their mid-30s. Many have no siblings, thanks to four decades of China's one-child policy—which also means their elderly parents can splash out on weddings and banquets. Moutai is often a guest of honour.
Moutai has succeeded thanks to nationalism, elitism and ageism, in other words—not in spite of this unholy trinity. But it faces risks. The government is its largest shareholder—and a meddlesome one. It appears to want prices to remain stable. Exorbitantly priced booze is at odds with its professed socialist ideals. Yet minority investors—including many foreign funds—lament that Moutai's wholesale price is a third of what it sells for in shops. Raising it could boost the company's profits further. Instead, in what some see as a travesty of corporate governance, its majority owner has plans to set up its own sales channel ...
In the long run, its biggest risk may be millennials. As they grow older, health concerns, work-life balance and the desire for more wholesome pursuits than binge-drinking may curb the "Ganbei!" toasting culture [heavy drinking] on which so much of the demand for Moutai rests. For the time being, though, the party goes on.
The phrase "would make it an invention to rival gunpowder" has been used in the passage in a sense that is
literal
substantive
metaphorical
synonymical
metaphorical
The claim that being hangover-proof would make Moutai "an invention to rival gunpowder" is clearly not meant literally, since a hangover cure is incomparable in historical or scientific significance to gunpowder. The phrase is used humorously to suggest that if Moutai truly were hangover-proof, it would be seen as a great Chinese invention, playing on national pride since gunpowder is one of China's most celebrated historical inventions.
Which one of the following is both a reason for Moutai's success as well as a possible threat to that success?
Chinese love of liquor filled celebration.
Government involvement in its business.
Its appeal to the rich.
Its appeal to the older age group.
Its appeal to the older age group.
Moutai's appeal to older age groups, those in their mid-30s and beyond, is presented as one of its key success factors since it looked beyond millennials and digital natives. However, the passage also identifies millennials as Moutai's biggest long-term risk, since as they age, health concerns and changing social habits may reduce the heavy drinking culture on which Moutai's demand depends. The appeal to older drinkers is both the current success factor and the implicit vulnerability as today's younger generation ages differently.
In the context of the passage, it is most likely that the author refers to Moutai's marketing strategy as "the unholy trinity" because
there is nothing holy about marketing techniques for liquor.
it profits from Chinese nationalist feelings.
it contradicts the Western strategy of marketing.
it exposes the firm to long term risks.
it contradicts the Western strategy of marketing.
The passage calls nationalism, elitism and ageism Moutai's "unholy trinity" because together they form a strategy that contradicts every Western marketing principle, ignoring millennials, digital sales, global reach and environmental responsibility, yet succeeds wildly in China. The phrase highlights the deliberate inversion of Western marketing orthodoxy.
In the context of the passage, we can infer that to succeed in the liquor industry in China, a marketing firm must consider all of the following factors affecting the Chinese liquor market EXCEPT that
there is money to be made from marketing to the middle class.
the government may control the pricing of products.
there are few competitors to meet the demands of high end liquor consumers.
the competition for winning over the middle class is very stiff.
there is money to be made from marketing to the middle class.
The passage explicitly states that markets are littered with the corpses of firms that could not compete in the cut-throat battle for Chinese middle-class wallets, directly suggesting that there is no money to be made from marketing to the middle class in China's competitive environment. So a firm must consider that the middle class market is extremely difficult and not necessarily profitable.
Studies showing that income inequality plays a positive role in economic growth are largely based on three arguments. The first argument focuses on investment indivisibilities wherein large sunk costs are required when implementing new fundamental innovations. Without stock markets and financial institutions to mobilize large sums of money, a high concentration of wealth is needed for individuals to undertake new industrial activities accompanied by high sunk costs . . . [One study] shows the relation between economic growth and income inequality for 45 countries during 1966-1995. [It was found] that the increase in income inequality has a significant positive relationship with economic growth in the short and medium term. Using system GMM, [another study estimated] the relation between income inequality and economic growth for 106 countries during 1965-2005 period. The results show that income inequality has a positive impact on economic growth in the short run, but the two are negatively correlated in the long run. The second argument is related to moral hazard and incentives . . . Because economic performance is determined by the unobservable level of effort that agents make, paying compensations without taking into account the economic performance achieved by individual agents will fail to elicit optimum effort from the agents. Thus, certain income inequalities contribute to growth by enhancing worker motivation . . . and by giving motivation to innovators and entrepreneurs . . . Finally, [another study] point[s] out that the concentration of wealth or stock ownership in relation to corporate governance contributes to growth. If stock ownership is distributed and owned by a large number of shareholders, it is not easy to make quick decisions due to the conflicting interests among shareholders, and this may also cause a free-rider problem in terms of monitoring and supervising managers and workers. . . .
Various studies have examined the relationships between income inequality and economic growth, and most of these assert that a negative correlation exists between the two. . . . Analyzing 159 countries for 1980-2012, they conclude that there exists a negative relation between income inequality and economic growth; when the income share of the richest 20% of population increases by 1%, the GDP decreases by 0.08%, whereas when the income share of the poorest 20% of population increases by 1%, the GDP increases by 0.38%. Some studies find that inequality has a negative impact on growth due to poor human capital accumulation and low fertility rates . . . while [others] point out that inequality creates political instability, resulting in lower investment. . . . [Some economists] argue that widening income inequality has a negative impact on economic growth because it negatively affects social consensus or social capital formation. One important research topic is the correlation between democratization and income redistribution. [Some scholars] explain that social pressure for income redistribution rises as income inequality increases in a democratic society. In other words, when democratization extends suffrage to a wider class of people, the increased political power of low- and middle-income voters results in broader support for income redistribution and social welfare expansion. However . . . if the rich have more political influence than the poor, the democratic system actually worsens income inequality rather than improving it.
Which one of the options below best summarises the passage?
The passage claims that evaluating the effect of income inequality on economic growth without considering both short- and long-term consequences is misguided.
The passage confines its discussion to financing gaps and corporate control while undercutting cross country evidence and overlooking the significance of concerns regarding human capital accumulation, fertility rates, and income redistribution under democratisation.
The passage argues that income inequality accelerates economic growth while also emphasising the significance of concerns regarding human capital accumulation, fertility rates, and political instability.
The passage outlines investment, incentive, and governance channels through which income inequality may support economic growth and reports short-term gains while noting long-term drawbacks.
The passage outlines investment, incentive, and governance channels through which income inequality may support economic growth and reports short-term gains while noting long-term drawbacks.
The passage's first half outlines three mechanisms through which income inequality may support growth, investment in high sunk-cost activities, incentive effects on workers and innovators, and concentrated ownership improving corporate governance, while noting that short-term gains may not persist in the long run. The second half presents the opposing evidence of a long-term negative relationship between inequality and growth.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: This is a partial claim about the importance of considering short and long-term effects, but it does not capture the passage's actual content, which outlines specific mechanisms and presents both sides of the empirical debate.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: This incorrectly claims the passage confines itself to financing gaps and corporate control, when it also discusses incentives, human capital, fertility rates, political instability and democratisation, so this is inaccurate.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: This says the passage "argues that income inequality accelerates economic growth," but the passage presents both sides, the positive and negative, without taking a single position, making this a misrepresentation.
Why Option D is Correct: This captures both halves accurately, the three investment, incentive, and governance channels that may support growth, the evidence of short-term gains, and the overall complication that long-term outcomes may be negative.
Key Takeaway: When a passage presents both sides of an empirical debate, the correct summary should reflect the structure of the argument, listing channels on one side and acknowledging the opposing evidence, without resolving the debate in favour of either position.
The passage refers to "democratization". Choose the one option below that comes closest to the opposite of this process.
After the emergency decree, the regime shifted toward authoritarianism as suffrage narrowed and opposition parties were deregistered.
Corporate donations were capped and parties received public funding which was portrayed as establishing an oligarchy.
Municipalities adopted participatory budgeting and recall elections which a press release called totalitarianism.
The coalition imposed term limits and strengthened judicial review in order to further entrench autocratic rule.
After the emergency decree, the regime shifted toward authoritarianism as suffrage narrowed and opposition parties were deregistered.
The passage defines democratisation in terms of extending suffrage to a wider class of people, increasing the political power of low- and middle-income voters, and broadening support for income redistribution. The opposite would be a narrowing of suffrage and a shift toward authoritarian rule, which is precisely what Option A describes.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: Capping corporate donations and using public funding is a reform within a democratic system, not a move away from democracy, despite the option labelling it an oligarchy, which is an incorrect framing of what it describes.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: Participatory budgeting and recall elections are expansions of democratic participation, despite the option using the word "totalitarianism," which does not match what the described measures actually represent.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: Term limits and strengthened judicial review are typically mechanisms for reinforcing democratic accountability, not autocratic rule, making the label "autocratic" inconsistent with the described measures.
Why Option A is Correct: Narrowing suffrage and deregistering opposition parties directly reverses the core features of democratisation described in the passage, making authoritarianism the genuine opposite.
Key Takeaway: When evaluating opposites, look at what the measures actually do rather than what labels the options attach to them, since several options use misleading labels that contradict the substance of what they describe.
The primary function of the three-part case for a positive income inequality-economic growth link in the first half of the passage is to show that:
inequality boosts growth in every period and type of economy, regardless of finance or governance conditions.
mature stock markets make wealth concentration unnecessary, yet they might still be harmful to investment.
inequality can aid short-term growth in settings with high sunk costs, incentive alignment, and concentrated ownership.
dispersed ownership speeds corporate decision-making and removes free rider problems.
inequality can aid short-term growth in settings with high sunk costs, incentive alignment, and concentrated ownership.
The passage's three-part case presents conditions under which inequality may support growth, specifically when large sunk costs require concentrated capital, when performance-based pay incentivises worker and innovator effort, and when concentrated ownership improves corporate decision-making and supervision.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: The passage does not claim inequality boosts growth in every period and type of economy, it presents conditions under which this may be true, and explicitly notes the long-run negative correlation across many countries.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: The passage does not argue that mature stock markets make wealth concentration unnecessary or harmful, it argues concentration is needed specifically when stock markets and financial institutions cannot mobilise large sums on their own.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: This reverses the passage's point about ownership, the passage argues that concentrated ownership improves decision-making and removes the free-rider problem, not that dispersed ownership speeds decisions.
Why Option C is Correct: This accurately captures the three specific conditional settings where inequality may aid growth, high sunk costs, incentive alignment, and concentrated ownership, without overstating the claim as universal.
Key Takeaway: When a passage presents a conditional argument, the correct characterisation must preserve those conditions rather than presenting the claim as unconditional or universal.
According to the incentive or moral hazard argument, which one of the designs below is most consistent with the claim that some inequality can raise growth?
Pay rewards on verifiable performance for highly productive workers.
Rents protected by market power that enlarge top incomes without linking pay to results.
Wages are determined by tenure rather than output to ensure equity.
A regime that concentrates stock ownership in relation to corporate governance.
Pay rewards on verifiable performance for highly productive workers.
The moral hazard argument in the passage states that since economic performance depends on unobservable effort, paying rewards without linking them to performance fails to elicit optimal effort. Therefore, performance-linked compensation creates the kind of inequality in pay that motivates workers to exert more effort and drives growth.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: Rents from market power that enlarge top incomes without linking pay to results are exactly what the moral hazard argument argues against, since this creates inequality without any incentive effect on effort or performance.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: Wages determined by tenure rather than output remove the performance-based link entirely, which the passage identifies as failing to elicit optimum effort, making this inconsistent with the moral hazard argument.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: Concentrated stock ownership relates to the third argument about corporate governance, not to the moral hazard or incentive argument, which is specifically about linking pay to individual performance.
Why Option A is Correct: Rewarding verifiable performance for highly productive workers directly reflects the moral hazard argument, since it links compensation to observable results, providing the incentive structure that the passage argues can raise growth.
Key Takeaway: Match a design to the specific mechanism the passage describes for a particular argument, rather than to other arguments that appear nearby in the same passage.
Want this as a timed attempt?
Log in free to attempt this topic with a real timer, analytics, streaks and bookmarks.