Hi everyone.
I saw this method in "Thurdays with Ron" (January 6, 2011:
) and I really like it because of it simplicity and elegancy (usual qualities of Ron explanations).
The main idea of this technic is to does not pay attention on the 90% of passage and try to pay attention only on the flow of the passage.
Per my opinion this technic is not apllicable to all passages but it is ideal for some of them and especially to passages that are really difficult for understanding and have a lot of unusual words.
Here is the one passage from Economist and I will try to show how this technic works in practice.
We should scan the passage, omit all unknown words and pay attention on key parts (I mark them by bold font):
The models of neoclassical economics are heavily influenced by rational choice theory. People, they argue, are rational actors seeking to maximize their income-constrained utility by applying all available production factors. Therefore, according to the premises of neoclassical economics, a peasant faced with a new technology, land-holding pattern or production method which promises a possibility for higher profits would choose to employ it. In this context, the behavior of Russian 19th century peasants and their refusal to endorse European methods and technologies puts neoclassical theory in a precarious position.
And, indeed, the classical explanation for the behavior of Russian peasants goes beyond the premises of neoclassical economics and even economical science itself. Early twentieth century Russian agrarian economist Alexander Chayanov presented two explanations for the economically irrational behavior of Russian peasants. One explanation, reminiscent of the theory of moral economy, posits that Russian peasants abhorred profit-maximizing behavior and therefore socially ostracized those peasants who attempted to run their households according to European agricultural principles. His second, and theoretically more important insight, is the so-called consumption-labor-balance principle, according to which Russian peasants did not seek to maximize economic utility but satisfy basic needs and maximize their leisure time. Therefore, the amount of work they invested was not determined by the rate of return on their investment but by the ratio of workers to consumers in any given household. Once they supplied the needs of all the consumers in the household, Russian peasants refused to work as they had few material needs, believed that any extra income would be taxed by the government or taken by their lords and valued leisure more than material objects.
Chayanov’s theories reigned supreme until the arrival of 1970s agrarian historians who put economic considerations back into Russian peasant studies. They convincingly argued that decisions made by Russian peasants were driven by economic needs peculiar to their position, albeit not in ways expected by the predictions of neoclassical theory. Thus, strip agriculture was economically beneficial because enclosed farmsteads were exposed to natural vagaries, metal appliances poorly fitted Russian soil conditions, machines were too expensive for the Russian household and the knowledge level and resources of the Russian peasant were insufficient for the use of fertilizer. The risk of loss of precious time or harvest outweighed the possible benefits of new technologies. Thus, while falsifying the universalistic assumptions of neoclassical economics, agrarian historians showed that human beings are indeed utility motivated creatures.
So, what we have finally:
Neoclassical model argue that rational people are seeking to maximize income.
Therefore [here is some facts to strength this position].
But Russian peasants did not rational [word 'refusal' says about this]
Two explanation of irrational behavior of Russian peasants from Alex
Alex opinion was considered as right but then agrarian historians make opposite opinion which backs to economic explanations.
Passage agree with their opinion [They (agrarian) convincly argued - this is passage words]So, we have theory from Neoclassical model. Russian peasants refuse this theory by this behavior. Alex made his explanations of this behavior. Agrarian made another explanations. Passage agree with the agrarians.
Let's look on the answers:
A) explaining the conceptual framework behind neoclassical economics and using Russian peasants' behavior in the 19th century
to prove that economic considerations are not the only motivating power behind human behavior
Passage proves nothing; it just pass some opinions and agree with agrarian.B) exploring two explanations for the divergence of Russian peasants' behavior in the 19th century
[alex and agrarian opinions – second and third paragraph] from neoclassical economic theory and indicating his or her agreement with one of those explanations
[end of the third paragraph]This is exactly that we wrote in our short version.C) comparing the explanations of Chayanov and 1970s agrarian historians for Russian peasants' behavior in the 19th century and showing how
both these explanations challenge the assumptions of mainstream economical science
agrarian were agree with economical science, only Alex opposite economies’ opinionD)
questioning the legitimacy of neoclassical economic theory while upholding the assumptions of general economics by arguing for the theories set by agrarian historians in the 1970s of Russian peasant behavior in the 19th century
Passage do not question anythingE) detailing neoclassical economic theory and presenting two possible explanations that have been given for Russian peasant behavior in the 19th century that contradicts its assumptions
This answer miss point that passage agree with agrarian. This is quite big part (logically not by by volume of text) to miss itSo with such technic we can solve main idea question even if completely didn't understand topic of the passage.
And this is at least one correct question per completely incomprehensible passage
_________________