Economist: Economists have long argued over the best way to measure

Hello, everyone. I will offer my views on this question in an effort to help the community. One of the biggest mistakes I see people make with boldface questions is to isolate just the boldface portions and think that that will somehow reveal the answer each time. This approach often results in incorrect answers or guesses, since this question type incorporates more jargon in the answer choices than do other types of questions. How are you supposed to spot an intermediate conclusion versus a main conclusion, for example, if you have not read the passage? (Hint: the main conclusion is not always the last sentence.) Your goal on such questions is to qualify each boldface portion by seeing how it connects to the lines around it. Sure, this is an especially long passage, but in some ways, that makes the task easier. How about we jump down to the answer choices, then, to see what we can tease out?


Sentence 1 outlines a debate going on among economists, and sentence two, our first boldface portion, presents us the first side of that debate on a platter, starting with the words on one side. The first half of this answer choice is fine. If you peek ahead at (E), you need not concern yourself with whether the line introduces or identifies one side. It is good enough to indicate that it concerns one side of a dichotomy. Move along to the second part. The problem here is that the latter portion of the answer choice is a trap. Right in the middle of the paragraph, once each side has been defined, we are told that in reality, the strong population bias associated with both statistics likely renders both inaccurate. Thus, the economist disagrees with both views and adopts a unique perspective from that point on, claiming that per-capita GDP offers the clearest picture. It is this very measure that the economist mentions in the last line, not anything having to do with the earlier dichotomy. We can rule this out as a valid answer.

I like playing the game of halves with these questions. I did not bother wasting time or effort considering this answer choice based on the second part because I knew the first was already off base. What opinion is expressed in the first boldface? Seriously, go back and read it. That statement is as matter-of-fact as can be. One side is defined, plain and simple, with no telltale judgmental words such as dubious, misguided, or even something much simpler in strong. It helps that the line that follows it, which outlines the second view, follows the same unbiased format, making it easier for us to see off this option.

Broader answers are often more difficult to argue against, but this one is too broad. The general topic seems to be introduced in the first line of the passage, with the second and third lines outlining the two opposing views on that topic—namely, the best way to measure the net wealth of a nation's economy. Again, with the first part here being questionable, there is no need to consider the second unless we need to come back to the answer later.

It is up for debate whether the first could be described as a common argument. It is the first of two sides outlined that economists seem to get behind. Does that make the argument common, though? If we jump across the semicolon, we can see an outright wrong description of the second boldface portion. The main conclusion, as I have touched on above, comes in the middle of the paragraph: per-capita GDP offers the clearest picture. The as clause that follows is a premise, an explanation justifying that conclusion. The rest of the passage serves to further the appeal of the per-capita GDP perspective. Do not let yourself get bogged down in the details of these questions. Look for an easy target wherever you can and pick it off. This one is history.

I hope the first part needs no further explanation by now. If we look at the second, we need to decide whether it 1) presents an example and 2) goes against the earlier dichotomy presented in the passage. Is the second boldface exemplifying something? Sure it is. There is a comparison of per-capita GDP, in general terms, between three countries that rank high under traditional measures of the wealth of an economy and three other countries that do not. This part checks out, then. What about whether the example flies in the face of the dichotomy? Again, this checks out. The transition however cues us in on the opposition of this line to the one that preceded it, the line that was framed, according to the former measures. In other words, the old measures inaccurately describe the wealth of nations. (Sorry, I had to toss in an Adam Smith reference for fun.) The new view espoused by the economist ought to be adopted instead. There is nothing to argue against here.

Despite the passage length and relative difficulty, the question took me 1:39 to solve and feel as though I had in the bag. The process of elimination is a mighty tool on the GMAT™. On both CR and RC, when you learn to read with the author in mind, and when you learn to follow the general relation of one part of a passage to another, you can see right through the nonsense the test throws in front of you.

I hope that helps. If anyone has further questions, I would be happy to offer my thoughts.

- Andrew