In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of

Hi Sneha2021,

I am not an expert, and surely GMATNinja would be able to explain better, but let me know if this helps.


Answer to the 1st Question can be inferred from the lines: "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."



Correct, as it can be directly inferred from the above lines.


No such inference can be drawn that during the 19th century accidental-death damage awards were based on the "degree of culpability" .

Thanks.

POE approach:

2. It can be inferred from the passage that in the early 1800’s children were generally regarded by their families as individuals who

(A) needed enormous amounts of security and affection
(B) required constant supervision while working
(C) were important to the economic well-being of a family
(D) were unsuited to spending long hours in school --> not even mentioned about
(E) were financial burdens assumed for the good of society --> opposite


IMO: C

7. Which of the following would be most consistent with the practices of sociological economics as these practices are described in the passage?
Scope: these sociologists tend to view all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain
(A) Arguing that most health-care professionals enter the field because they believe it to be the most socially useful of any occupation
(B) Arguing that most college students choose majors that they believe will lead to the most highly paid jobs available to them
(C) Arguing that most decisions about marriage and divorce are based on rational assessments of the likelihood that each partner will remain committed to the relationship
(D) Analyzing changes in the number of people enrolled in colleges and universities as a function of changes in the economic health of these institutions
(E) Analyzing changes in the ages at which people get married as a function of a change in the average number of years that young people have lived away from their parents

Hi GMATNinja can you please explain q1 . if in 1979 the parents won an award for the death of a 3 year old then how can the principal for giving awrds be choice a ?? how can a 3 year old contribute to the family

Question 1

The nineteenth century would actually refer to the 1800s. So, while it is a bit confusing, the 1979 suit took place in the twentieth century, and the 1896 suit took place in the nineteenth century.

With that in mind, take another look at question 1, and see if that clears anything up!
_________________

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma
Could you please help explain why question 4 option C is incorrect?
I thought there were 2 views being contrasted.

Paragraph 1: In 1896, children had no economical value. In 1976, a child had an economical value of $750k.

Paragraph 2: 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 ...

Paragraph 3: For Zelizer the origins of this transformation were many and complex...

Paragraph 4: In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new “sociological economics,” ...

The passage talks about what Zelizer explains in her book and how.


4. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) review the literature in a new academic sub-field
Only one book is discussed.

(B) present the central thesis of a recent book
This is correct. The passage gives the central thesis of "Pricing the Priceless Child".

(C) contrast two approaches to analyzing historical change
Not correct. Only Zelizer's approach to analysing historical change (how the economically 0 value child became priceless) is discussed.
krittapat

Answer (B)
_________________

I think I answered C because I was contrasting Zelier's approach to sociological economist's.
Aren't these 2 approaches considered the 2 different approaches to analyzing historical change?
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

But we are not given what the sociological economists say about "historical change" in the value of child. Their analysis on this change is not mentioned. We only know that they believe that price affects behaviour. Zelizer suggests that its the opposite - social values affect price and that is how she explains the change in value.
_________________

ThatDudeKnows MartyTargetTestPrep KarishmaB GMATNinja avigutman ChiranjeevSingh there is no offlicial explanation or expert explanation on Question 7 so please answer that in detail. Especially do not understand D

Elite097 I tried to answer Q7 without reading the passage. After reading the question stem, I hunted for "sociological economics", spotted this: "practitioners of the new “sociological economics,”" and studied the following sentence very closely:

Then I re-read the question stem, followed by the answer choices. I stopped reading after answer choice (B) and selected it.


Regarding answer choice (D), can you elaborate on what it is that you don't understand there? It seems irrelevant to me, talking about the economic health of colleges and universities.
_________________

first, I do not clearly understand the point of the last passage and why the author is trying to indicate a contrast to sociological economists' views.
2) I do not understand the meaning of this: new “sociological economics,” who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely in terms of their economic determinants.--- what would be an example of how they evaluated it ?
3) The contrast in that para does not seem apparent to me- So what, if the economists view those factors in terms of their economic determinants? What does that have anything to do with the person's worth (which is what Zilinger's argument is about). Even if someone marries someone for the monetary benefit of marrying someone/ even if someone 'prefers' to do something based o economic decisions, what does that have to tell us about 'that' (who is making such a decision) person's worth? And how is this a contrast to what Zelinger says?
4) D is talking about economic health. If changes in people are analysed with respect to the economic health (economic gain), then more people indicate good economic health and vice versa. This is in line with the economists who see everything in terms of economic gain

Hope this clarifies avigutman

Zelizer isn't a fan of analyzing things solely in terms of their economic determinants. The contrast reveals itself when we dig into the things... What things? A child's worth, crime, marriage, education, and health.
For example, what is a marriage worth? Well, what's the economic value created by the marriage, compared to the economic value that would have been created if the marriage hadn't taken place? What's an education worth? Let's say you get an MBA: compare your lifetime earnings post MBA to what they would have been without an MBA. What's a child's life worth? Well, what's the child's economic contribution to the family?
Yes, it is talking about economic health. The healthier a college is economically, the greater its enrolment, I guess? So, students are choosing to enrol in economically healthier colleges? Is that because if you go to a college that is economically healthier, you are more likely to earn more money in the future? I don't know, seems like a stretch, Elite097.
_________________

Question 7

According to the passage, "social economists" think that of "all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain." The "gain" discussed here belongs to the person doing the behavior -- in other words, people are primarily driven to maximize their OWN economic gain.

Here's (D):

(D) talks about the economic health of the institutions. This doesn't quite fit with the social economists' argument that people act for their own economic gain. Will people maximize their own gain by going to a "healthier" institution? We have no idea. So, (D) doesn't describe a situation that goes along with the social economists' view.

Eliminate (D) for question 7.

I hope that helps!
_________________

3) The contrast in that para does not seem apparent to me- So what, if the economists view those factors in terms of their economic determinants? What does that have anything to do with the person's worth (which is what Zilinger's argument is about). Even if someone marries someone for the monetary benefit of marrying someone/ even if someone 'prefers' to do something based o economic decisions, what does that have to tell us about 'that' (who is making such a decision) person's worth? And how is this a contrast to what Zelinger says?
4) Ok but we can also look at it from college perspective that they analyze these trends based on enrollments and hence they are on a lookout for economic gains avigutman

Let's take another look at what practice the correct answer is supposed to be consistent with:

Elite097, please take some time to reflect on this practice, and in particular on the meaning of the boldfaced word.
Now let's compare the correct answer (B) to the wrong answer (D):

Is it your position, Elite097, that these two answer choices are equally consistent with the practices of sociological economics? Or that (D) is more consistent than (B) is?
_________________

Hi experts IanStewart AndrewN avigutman AjiteshArun zhanbo

It is an interesting passage of social science, but I am confused with some options even though I have checked all posts in this thread. Could you share some of your thoughts when you have time? Thank you!

1. Question 6


I was stuck between (D) and (E), because even though the passage does not mention any change in the attitudes toward reform movements, it does not mention the change in the attitudes towards the marketplace either, at least literally.



Zelizer claims that the expulsion of children from the cash nexus was also part of a cultural process of sacralization of children lives, and this sacralization was a way of resisting what Americans considered the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace. There is no word that means "change" in this claim. So I guess I need to infer that since it is a "process," something might have changed in the process (a view or an attitude towards some cultural issue), and since people resisted what they did not resist earlier, a shift in people's attitudes should be present. Are my thinking lines correct?

To infer or not to infer, that is the question to me in the RC section. (Sorry Shakespeare) Unlike CR questions, with which I can more confidently know when I should make inference, RC questions are not that clear. I fall into trap options sometimes because I happily make undue inference, and sometimes because I don't make adequate inference. I know that test takers must stick to the original passage for the "according to/mention/state" type questions, and they must infer for the "suggest/imply/can be inferred" type questions. But sometimes the line seems blurred to me--for example, I thought that this question, with phrasing "refer to," is the first type of question, so I should not make any inference, and thus was hesitant about (E).

Am I being too narrow here? Am I supposed to understand that there should be a shift in people's attitudes towards the marketplace even though the word "change" or its synonyms never show in the passage?

2. Question 3


All five options start with "The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century," which is the first thing bothering me, since we readers cannot really tell whether the sociological economists agree that children's cash value rose during the period. In fact, I suppose that because the economists view everything in terms of economics, they are more likely to hold that the children's cash value decreased during 19C, because child labor was limited by new regulations while children remained costly to their parents.

With this line of thinking, I will prefer an option saying that the children's cash value declined during the period, but there is not such an option. So, I know that I need to accept that these economists, contrary to my original analysis, hold that children's cash value increased during 19C and I need to find out an explanation. (So far this process has taken me 40 seconds. )

I have no problem with the correct option (B), and I do not feel interested at (D) as much as I do at (B), but I am not very sure why (D) is incorrect.

(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.

To eliminate (D), experts whom I respect have explained in previous posts that children could not work because of the new regulations, so child labor should be irrelevant to the change in the cash value. Another explanation is that (D)'s use of "compulsory education laws" is problematic because there is no evidence that the laws were implemented to maximize economic gains.

But I have some doubts: (1) the new rules were "child labor regulations" and "compulsory education laws," from whose name we readers cannot really infer that child labors are banned completely. Yes, the passage says that the new rules were based on an assumption that a child’s emotional value made child labor "taboo," which is a strong word. But a strong assumption does not mean that the regulations based on the assumption will also have strong requirements, does it? An analogy is that in some countries anti-smoking programs are based on the assumption that smoking even a cigarette a day has a huge impact on health, but these programs do not ban smoking completely.

(2) I am unsure why the use of "compulsory education laws" is problematic. It seems natural to me that these economists analyze the economic effect of new regulations. The passage mentions the new regulations as facts, so I do not feel that these economists need to go that far to give evidence that the new regulations were enforced in order to maximize economic gains.

The only way I can eliminate (D) is similar to the way I use in CR statistics questions: the raised costs might lead to higher income earned by a child individually if his or her work hours remained unchanged, but because the supply of child labor was reduced by the new rules, it is possible that the total income earned by all children actually decreased, contradicting the claim that the children's cash value rose during 19C. It is also possible that the total income earned by children increased, but we are not sure. So, (D) is not safe.

But I am concerned that my thinking process might not be efficient--I spent two minutes on this question. Hence, I would like to learn how you experts attack (D) quickly.

3. "humanitarian"

Separately I have a secondary question about the Question 3--I am curious whether the option (C) is a good rephrasing of Zelizer's view. I am unsure whether Americans' new attitudes toward child labor in late 19C and 20C could be described as "humanitarian," which is usually used to describe people's treatment to prisoners or others affected by the war.

(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.

Thank you experts for your time and thoughts!
Thank you for helping me learn.

Hi, GraceSCKao,

(1) Question 6.
This is the only question that I need to refer back to the passage, but not for (E) (attitudes toward the market place). That option is explicitly mentioned as one origin of this transformation. At the last sentence of paragraph 3,

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 sacralization’ 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 market place.

(I needed to check back to the passage because I could not identify what "attitudes toward reform movements" means. Also, "the nature of industry" and ”the nature of the family“ are rather abstract expressions. )

(2) Question 3.
Sociological economists must believe in their theories, and they will use their theories to explain any economical phenomenon. The recompense disparity for the loss of a child in public courts is something Viviana Zelizer uses to advance her points, but sociological economists may disagree.

"Wait a minute," Sociological economists says, "it proves that we are right". Why? Well, this question asks us to pick a possible explanation sociological economists may provide. They analyze everything solely in terms of its economic determinants. So we have to pick an answer that is based on economic factors.

I eliminated (D) because "a child’s emotional value made child labor taboo". I do not think sociological economists would like to price taboo topics.

(Note that, if we apply this line of logic, the two-year-old child in 1896 case was certainly not worthless. But that is beyond the scope of this question. )

(3) To me, "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" does summarize Viviana Zelizer's view, though it is in variance with Sociological economists'.

Humanitarian = compassionate
and the article cites the development of the companionate family
So they are close enough.

Hope it helps!

Hello, GraceSCKao. I was getting ready to reply when I saw that zhanbo had just posted a response. I agree with his analysis of question 6. The demonstrative this in this sacralization must link to the previous time sacralization was mentioned, and we do not really need to infer much at all.

My take on question 3 is as follows. First, do not worry about picking apart every little point that others may have drawn attention to. We are all just calling attention to points as we see them. Sometimes there is an overlap in what we see or choose to write about, sometimes not. Since this question asks us to consider what sociological economists would have to say about the change in the cash value of children between the 19th and 20th centuries, we should root our answer in the paragraph that describes this group, the final paragraph of the passage. There, we are told that practitioners analyze sociological topics... in terms of their economic determinants, and that they tend to view all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain. If we focus on maximizing economic gain specifically, there is little to be drawn into in answer choice (D).


Laws of supply and demand are certainly economic concerns, but reduced supply and raised costs of child labor sound somewhat contrary to maximizing economic gain in a maturing industrial economy, to quote from paragraph three. We have no reason to believe that sociological economists would champion the notion that fewer child laborers would lead to maximizing economic gain for the whole society.

Contrast with (B), which builds off the premise, again from paragraph three, that there was a decline in birth and death rates, especially in child mortality during the twentieth century. More children might logically lead to more workers, even down the road a bit, and thus maximize economic gain, in the eyes of sociological economists. (We have no reason to doubt that Zelizer was citing actual statistics on birth and mortality rates. The interpretation of this information, though, can lead to divergent views on the change in the cash value of children.)

That is it. I did not think much about (B) and (D) beyond what I have written above.


Stop worrying about it. Consider your average timing across a given set of RC questions. I will let you in on a little secret: I spent over two minutes on this question as well. We can celebrate our inefficiency together! If you are curious, the following is an exact report of my timing and outcome per question for this passage when I laid eyes on it for the first time on 24 November 2021.

Question 1 (3:25) - Correct
Question 2 (0:25) - Correct
Question 3 (2:07) - Correct
Question 4 (0:38) - Correct
Question 5 (1:04) - Correct
Question 6 (1:04) - Correct (No, this is not a transcription error—I spent the same amount of time on back-to-back questions.)
Question 7 (0:54) - Correct

The above is not an uncommon pattern for me at all in RC. I spend a lot of time upfront reading and understanding the passage. (I am not the fastest of readers.) Then, I spend time on questions when I feel the need to do so. I let other questions balance the timing out. It is not as though I know such a balancing act will occur, but practice has taught me to trust that the timing will sort of work itself out. If not, then I will look to make up a little time on some other question, or I might get lucky somewhere on another RC passage and hit my stride. Looking at the above, I spent an average of 1:22 per question, and that is just fine. Even on an exam in which I saw only my worst three questions, by timing, I would average 2:12 per question, and that is not the sort of time I feel would be beyond my reach to gain back, little more than a minute in all. To be honest, I am much more pleased that I went seven for seven.

Do not sweat the small stuff.

- Andrew
_________________