Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 1808:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
Welcome to EP3 of GMAT Focus Critical Reasoning series. In this video, Ryan Starr focuses on Inference, one of the most commonly-tested skills across the entire GMAT, and Boldface, one of the most annoying CR question types overall.
Sep 1811:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
Sep 2001:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.
Sep 2105:30 AM PDT
-07:30 AM PDT
Not only the typical inference questions but also all other CR questions on the GMAT require the ability to deduce from the given information. Come master how to draw inferences accurately and efficiently with Verbal Expert-Sunita Singhvi. Limited Seats!
Sep 2111:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Sep 2108:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Sep 2210:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
More and more TTP students are earning impressive scores on the GMAT. Now is the perfect time to join the many GMAT students who made the switch to TTP and surpassed their wildest expectations on test day.- Sep 22
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of
[#permalink]
Updated on: 18 Jan 2021, 11:10
Updated on: 18 Jan 2021, 11:10
23
Kudos
56
Bookmarks
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
based on 3164 sessions
77% (03:12) correct
23%
(03:15) wrong
Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
based on 3636 sessions
69% (01:00) correct 31%
(01:13) wrong
Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
based on 3492 sessions
43% (01:47) correct 57%
(01:49) wrong
Question 4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
based on 3431 sessions
62% (00:51) correct 38%
(00:54) wrong
Question 5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
based on 3350 sessions
85% (00:57) correct 15%
(01:03) wrong
Question 6
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
based on 3352 sessions
59% (01:12) correct 41%
(01:05) wrong
Question 7
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
based on 3136 sessions
79% (01:13) correct 21%
(01:31) wrong The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 10th Edition, 2003
Practice Question
Question No.: RC 37 ~ 42
Page: 332
Practice Question
Question No.: RC 37 ~ 42
Page: 332
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
A
A is the best answer. In the first paragraph, the author cites an accidental-death case from nineteenth-century America in which the absence of economic contribution on the part of a deceased child was ruled sufficient grounds to deny the awarding of damages to the child’s parents. The author goes on to discuss how this case typified attitudes that persisted even into the twentieth
century. It can be inferred from this that in nineteenth-century America the chief consideration in determining damages in an accidental-death case was the deceased person’s earnings.
There are no evidence in the passage to suggest that the factors in B, C, D and E were of primary concern in determining accidental-death damages in nineteenth-century America.
century. It can be inferred from this that in nineteenth-century America the chief consideration in determining damages in an accidental-death case was the deceased person’s earnings.
There are no evidence in the passage to suggest that the factors in B, C, D and E were of primary concern in determining accidental-death damages in nineteenth-century America.
(A) earnings of the person at time of death
(B) wealth of the party causing the death
(C) degree of culpability of the party causing the death
(D) amount of money that had been spent on the person killed
(E) amount of suffering endured by the family of the person killed
C
C is the best answer.
In the second paragraph, the author describes how during the nineteenth century the concept of the “ ‘useful’ child who contributed to the family economy” (lines 23-24) gradually gave way to the present-day notion of the economically “useless” but emotionally “priceless” child. This new view of childhood was “well established among segments of the middle and upper classes by the
mid-1800’s” and “spread throughout society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries” (lines 31-38). Thus in the early 1800’s, prior to the shift in the valuation of children, families valued the role children had to play in the family’s economic well-being.
A and E describe attitude more in accord with the present-day view of childhood. B and D address issues that are not raised in the passage.
In the second paragraph, the author describes how during the nineteenth century the concept of the “ ‘useful’ child who contributed to the family economy” (lines 23-24) gradually gave way to the present-day notion of the economically “useless” but emotionally “priceless” child. This new view of childhood was “well established among segments of the middle and upper classes by the
mid-1800’s” and “spread throughout society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries” (lines 31-38). Thus in the early 1800’s, prior to the shift in the valuation of children, families valued the role children had to play in the family’s economic well-being.
A and E describe attitude more in accord with the present-day view of childhood. B and D address issues that are not raised in the passage.
(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
(E) were financial burdens assumed for the good of society
B
B is the best answer.
According to the author, practitioners of the new “sociological economics” explain sociological phenomena “solely in terms of their economic determinants” and “tend to view all human behavior as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain’ (lines 85-98). This choice provides just such an economic explanation for the nineteenth-century rise in the cash
value of children.
A paraphrases Zelizer’s own explanation, which is at odds with that of the sociological economists.
C uses social values and emotional factors to explain an even broader revaluation of individual worth. D uses an economic argument to explain the change, but here the economic factors at work are the result of a change. E provides a legal explanation for the change.
According to the author, practitioners of the new “sociological economics” explain sociological phenomena “solely in terms of their economic determinants” and “tend to view all human behavior as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain’ (lines 85-98). This choice provides just such an economic explanation for the nineteenth-century rise in the cash
value of children.
A paraphrases Zelizer’s own explanation, which is at odds with that of the sociological economists.
C uses social values and emotional factors to explain an even broader revaluation of individual worth. D uses an economic argument to explain the change, but here the economic factors at work are the result of a change. E provides a legal explanation for the change.
(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.
B
B is the best answer.
In the first paragraph, the author contrasts two incidents that are said to exemplify the transformation in social values that forms the subject of Zelizer’s book. The second and third paragraphs consist of a brief history of that transformation, as Zelizer presents it, and an account of the factors she considers important in bringing it about. In the last paragraph, the author explains how Zelizer’s thesis differs from that of sociological economists. Thus, the passage serves primarily to present the central thesis of Zelizer’s book.
A and E misrepresent the subject matter of the passage. D mispresents the author’s approach. C is incorrect because although the passage does contrast two approaches, this contrast takes place only in the final paragraph.
In the first paragraph, the author contrasts two incidents that are said to exemplify the transformation in social values that forms the subject of Zelizer’s book. The second and third paragraphs consist of a brief history of that transformation, as Zelizer presents it, and an account of the factors she considers important in bringing it about. In the last paragraph, the author explains how Zelizer’s thesis differs from that of sociological economists. Thus, the passage serves primarily to present the central thesis of Zelizer’s book.
A and E misrepresent the subject matter of the passage. D mispresents the author’s approach. C is incorrect because although the passage does contrast two approaches, this contrast takes place only in the final paragraph.
(A) review the literature in a new academic sub-field
(B) present the central thesis of a recent book
(C) contrast two approaches to analyzing historical change
(D) refute a traditional explanation of a social phenomenon
(E) encourage further work on a neglected historical topic
C
C is the best answer.
In the third paragraph, the author cites Zelizer’s contention that the new view of childhood that developed in nineteenth-century America was due in part to “the development of the companionate family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather than duty)”(lines 54-58). From this it can be inferred that the emotional bonds between family members became increasingly important during this period.
There are no information in the passage to support the other answer choices.
In the third paragraph, the author cites Zelizer’s contention that the new view of childhood that developed in nineteenth-century America was due in part to “the development of the companionate family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather than duty)”(lines 54-58). From this it can be inferred that the emotional bonds between family members became increasingly important during this period.
There are no information in the passage to support the other answer choices.
(A) The average size of families grew considerably.
(B) The percentage of families involved in industrial work declined dramatically.
(C) Family members became more emotionally bonded to one another.
(D) Family members spent an increasing amount of time working with each other.
(E) Family members became more economically dependent on each other.
D
D is the best answer.
Although reform movements are mentioned in lines 39-45, the passage does not discuss attitudes or changes in attitudes toward those movements. This choice is therefore NOT among the influences Zelizer is said to regard as important in changing the assessment of children’s worth.
A, B and C are mentioned in lines 48-58 as factors Zelizer regards as “critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth”. E is mentioned in lines 70-80, which describe how the “sacralization” of children’s lives represented “a way of resisting what they <middle-class Americans> perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace.”
Although reform movements are mentioned in lines 39-45, the passage does not discuss attitudes or changes in attitudes toward those movements. This choice is therefore NOT among the influences Zelizer is said to regard as important in changing the assessment of children’s worth.
A, B and C are mentioned in lines 48-58 as factors Zelizer regards as “critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth”. E is mentioned in lines 70-80, which describe how the “sacralization” of children’s lives represented “a way of resisting what they <middle-class Americans> perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace.”
(A) the mortality rate
(B) the nature of industry
(C) the nature of the family
(D) attitudes toward reform movements
(E) attitudes toward the marketplace
B
(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
Manager
Joined: 02 May 2016
Posts: 60
Given Kudos: 207
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
GRE 1: Q163 V154
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of
[#permalink]
08 Aug 2017, 09:34
08 Aug 2017, 09:34
12
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
arvind910619
Please provide explanation for question 3 .
It was a good passage and the language was hard .
Let me try:It was a good passage and the language was hard .
Let's see the question:
Quote:
3. 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?
If you notice, all options start with "the cash value rose because...". So we just need to find what sociological economists would argue caused the rise in cash value of children.This is what passage says :
- sociological economics allow 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.
sociological economist don't give a damn about cultural influences playing a part n change in ash value of children. Sociological economists believe that cash value of children rose just because these children could be used to maximise economic gain, i.e. extra income for the family, over their lifetime.
Lets see the options:
(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.
This is complete opposite. Moreover if we look closely, this view is held by Zelizer.
(B) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because their expected earnings over the course of a lifetime increased greatly.
Only answer tying "economic gain" to the children. Their value increased because the expected earnings increased.
(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.
humanitarian ideals (social ideals) reslted in a wholesale re-appraisal? We don't know whether it happened wholesale (one time reappraisal) or gradually. Moreover, no mention of this in sociological economists' discussion
(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.
This answer "economic gain" to children but in "effect" of another cause-which is not mentioned (or mentioned elsewhere) in the passage. This answer combines two parts of the passage incorrectly.
(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.
Purely out of scope, isnt' it?
Does it make sense?
Was I of any help?
Re: In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of
[#permalink]
27 Jun 2019, 14:03
27 Jun 2019, 14:03
10
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Sorry, I'm late to the party yet again, and I think VeritasKarishma already covered this really, really nicely. But just in case my two cents help somebody...
Let's first take a look at answer choice (B):
Now look at (D):
However, (D) identifies another factor as the root cause of this economic situation: "compulsory education laws." Remember, sociological economists believe that all human behavior tends to be directed by the desire to maximize economic gain. So, from their perspective, the "compulsory education laws" must also have been put into place in order to maximize economic gain! There is just no evidence to suggest that this is true -- if anything, it is more likely that these laws were a result of changing social values, which in turn would increase the price of the remaining available child labor. This is more in line with Zelizer's argument against the sociological economists' views. (D) is out.
I hope that helps!
sayan640
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
In question 3 , why is option D incorrect and option B the correct answer ?
Question #3 asks which answer choice would likely be put forward by the "sociological economists" discussed in the passage. In the last paragraph, we learn that these economists "tend to view all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain." This is contrasted with Zizeler's view, which emphasizes instead "the power of social values to transform price."In question 3 , why is option D incorrect and option B the correct answer ?
Let's first take a look at answer choice (B):
Quote:
(B) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because their expected earnings over the course of a lifetime increased greatly.
This answer choice directly ties the rising cash value of children to the "principle of maximizing economic gain." As their expected lifetime earnings increase, so does their cash value. This purely economic view of the value of children is right in line with the beliefs of the sociological economists. (B) is the correct answer.Now look at (D):
Quote:
(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.
On a surface level, this answer choice also seems to emphasize economic factors to explain the increase in the value of children -- supply of child labor decreased, so the cost of that labor increased. However, (D) identifies another factor as the root cause of this economic situation: "compulsory education laws." Remember, sociological economists believe that all human behavior tends to be directed by the desire to maximize economic gain. So, from their perspective, the "compulsory education laws" must also have been put into place in order to maximize economic gain! There is just no evidence to suggest that this is true -- if anything, it is more likely that these laws were a result of changing social values, which in turn would increase the price of the remaining available child labor. This is more in line with Zelizer's argument against the sociological economists' views. (D) is out.
I hope that helps!
