government economists

Question

Some government economists view their home countries as immune to outside influence. But economies are always open systems; international trade significantly affects prices and wages. Just as physicists learnt the shortcomings of a mechanics based on idealisations such as the postulation of perfectly frictionless bodies, government economists must look beyond national borders if their nations' economies are to prosper.


The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(a) a national economy cannot prosper unless every significant influence on it has been examined by the nation's government economists
(b) economics is weakly analogous to the physical sciences
(c) economic theories relying on idealisations are generally less accurate than economic theories that do not rely on idealisations
(d) international trade is a primary significant variable influencing prices and wages
(e) some government economists have been ignoring the effects of international trade on prices and wages

ranga41 · Answer

A IMO..

jstalin · Answer

E IMO

macca · Answer

I'd go with A on this one.

jdtomatito · Answer

I pick E.

gamjatang · Answer

I vote for (A).

We don't have to assuem (E) since some government economists are already ignoring the outside effects (such as international trades).

If we do not assume (A), to say, if a national economy can prosper without examining all the significant influences on it, we can also say that we don't have to look beyond the national borders.

ywilfred · Answer

I'll take A. The passage states that the economists need to review every external factor (look beyong borders) if the economy is to grow.

mohish · Answer

ok, I now strongly think A is the answer..

But could someone explain why "economics is weakly analogous to the physical sciences" is way off? I mean...if it were "economics is STRONGLY analogous to the physical sciences", could it have possibly been an answer...After all, in the conclusion, the passage does express some kind of an analogy between Physical sciences and economics...what am I missing?

ywilfred · Answer

The assumption needs to be an unstated piece of premise that will hold up the conclusion. In this passage, the conclusion is "government economists must look beyond national borders if their nations' economies are to prosper.". If we said the assumption was "economics is weakly analogous to the physical sciences", we could quite prop up the conclusion. Here's one way of looking at it: - economics is weakly analogous to the physical sciences - (therefore) economists must look beyond national borders if their nations' economies are to prosper Doesn't sound very good and very convincing does it? Now, if you consider A, and using the same method: - a national economy cannot prosper unless every significant influence on it has been examined by the nation's government economists - (therefore) economists must look beyond national borders if their nations' economies are to prosper Now it looks more complete doesn't it? :wink:

hkm_gmat · Answer

Folks,

my take is C

My reasoning :

The Conclusion "government economists must look beyond national borders if their nations' economies are to prosper" is based on the premise that "idealisations" is false. 

OA / OE please ?

mohish · Answer

Thanks ywilfred for your lucid explanation. Really helps...

ronybtl · Answer

OA is A.

government economists

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards