Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 01 Nov 2014, 03:17

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 341
Location: Washington DC
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [1] , given: 4

In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental [#permalink] New post 21 May 2008, 14:25
1
This post received
KUDOS
In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of their two year old was told that since the child had made no real economic contribution to the family, there was no liability for damages. In contrast, less than a century later, in 1979, the parents of a three-year-old sued in New York for accidental-death damages and won an award of $750,000.
The transformation in social values implicit in juxtaposing these two incidents is the subject of Viviana Zelizer’s excellent book, Pricing the Priceless Child. During the nineteenth century, she argues, the concept of the “useful” child who contributed to the family economy gave way gradually to the present-day notion of the “useless” child who, though producing no income for, and indeed extremely costly to, its parents, is yet considered emotionally “priceless.” Well established among segments of the middle and upper classes by the mid-1800’s, this new view of childhood spread throughout society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries as reformers introduced child-labor regulations and compulsory education laws predicated in part on the assumption that a child’s emotional value made child labor taboo.
For Zelizer the origins of this transformation were many and complex. The gradual erosion of children’s productive value in a maturing industrial economy, the decline in birth and death rates, especially in child mortality, and the development of the companionate family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather than duty) were all factors critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth. Yet “expulsion of children from the ‘cash nexus,’ although clearly shaped by profound changes in the economic, occupational, and family structures,” Zelizer maintains, “was also part of a cultural process ‘of sacrelization’ of children’s lives.” Protecting children from the crass business world became enormously important for late-nineteenth-century middle-class Americans, she suggests; this sacralization was a way of resisting what they perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace.
In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new “sociological economics,” who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely in terms of their economic determinants. Allowing only a small role for cultural forces in the form of individual “preferences,” these sociologists tend to view all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain. Zelizer is highly critical of this approach, and emphasizes instead the opposite phenomenon: the power of social values to transform price. As children became more valuable in emotional terms, she argues, their “exchange” or “surrender” value on the market, that is, the conversion of their intangible worth into cash terms, became much greater.

Which of the following alternative explanations of the change in the cash value of children would be most likely to be put forward by sociological economists as they are described in the passage?
(A) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because parents began to increase their emotional investment in the upbringing of their children.
(B) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because their expected earnings over the course of a lifetime increased greatly.
(C) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because the spread of humanitarian ideals resulted in a wholesale reappraisal of the worth of an individual.
(D) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because compulsory education laws reduced the supply, and thus raised the costs, of available child labor.
(E) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because of changes in the way negligence law assessed damages in accidental death cases.
Kaplan Promo CodeKnewton GMAT Discount CodesManhattan GMAT Discount Codes
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3403
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 167 [0], given: 2

Re: RC-Social economist. [#permalink] New post 21 May 2008, 14:41
i think B makes most sense..
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 215
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: RC-Social economist. [#permalink] New post 21 May 2008, 20:27
Agreed B is the most suitable of all.

In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new “sociological economics,” who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely in terms of their economic determinants. Allowing only a small role for cultural forces in the form of individual “preferences,” these sociologists tend to view all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain. Zelizer is highly critical of this approach, and emphasizes instead the opposite phenomenon: the power of social values to transform price. As children became more valuable in emotional terms, she argues, their “exchange” or “surrender” value on the market, that is, the conversion of their intangible worth into cash terms, became much greater.

Which of the following alternative explanations of the change in the cash value of children would be most likely to be put forward by sociological economists as they are described in the passage?
(A) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because parents began to increase their emotional investment in the upbringing of their children.
(B) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because their expected earnings over the course of a lifetime increased greatly.
(C) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because the spread of humanitarian ideals resulted in a wholesale reappraisal of the worth of an individual.
(D) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because compulsory education laws reduced the supply, and thus raised the costs, of available child labor.
(E) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because of changes in the way negligence law assessed damages in accidental death cases.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 341
Location: Washington DC
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 4

Re: RC-Social economist. [#permalink] New post 22 May 2008, 15:36
Yep B is indeed OA. But I selected wrong while practicing..anyways thanks guys.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 215
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: RC-Social economist. [#permalink] New post 23 May 2008, 13:11
Damn.. Now that is the best news I had ina long time with such lengthy, monotonous, & tricky RCs. That gives me enough confidence to tackle such monotonous monstrosity on teh G-Day. Keep up the good work, Marshpa. You are doing such a good job with these interesting posts.
Re: RC-Social economist.   [#permalink] 23 May 2008, 13:11
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Experts publish their posts in the topic Computer companies whose warranties cover accidental damage, yogirb8801 2 10 Jun 2013, 19:42
Experts publish their posts in the topic couple dtaneja 3 02 Jun 2009, 02:50
Damage to Vs Damage of vivektripathi 1 26 Jul 2008, 23:17
Advice - accidental gpa error treefit 4 27 Mar 2007, 07:30
Is being sued... Titleist 23 15 Nov 2005, 19:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.