It is currently 25 Sep 2017, 11:57

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is

Author Message
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 853

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2007, 01:02
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is the following: people making economic decisions cannot readily compare environmental factors, such as clean air and the survival of endangered species, with other costs and benefits. As environmental economists recognize, solving this problem requires assigning monetary values to environmental factors. But monetary values result from people comparing costs and benefits in order to arrive at economic decisions. Thus, environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it.

If the considerations advanced in its support are true, the passageâ€™s conclusion is supported
(A) strongly, on the assumption that monetary values for environment factors cannot be assigned unless people make economic decisions about these factors
(B) strongly, unless economic decision-making has not yet had any effect on the things categorized as environmental factors
(C) at best weakly, because the passage fails to establish that economic decision-makers do not by and large take adequate account of environmental factors
(D) at best weakly, because the argument assumes that pollution and other effects on environmental factors rarely result from economic decision-making
(E) not at all, since the argument is circular, taking that conclusion as one of its premises

I am confused b/w B and E...any thoughts??

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

 Economist GMAT Tutor Discount Codes Math Revolution Discount Codes Jamboree Discount Codes
Manager
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 172

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2007, 11:05
I am totally confused but on a test day I would have chosen A

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 213

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2007, 10:21
[quote="vineetgupta"]The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is the following: people making economic decisions cannot readily compare environmental factors, such as clean air and the survival of endangered species, with other costs and benefits. As environmental economists recognize, solving this problem requires assigning monetary values to environmental factors. But monetary values result from people comparing costs and benefits in order to arrive at economic decisions. Thus, environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it.

If the considerations advanced in its support are true, the passageтАЩs conclusion is supported
(A) strongly, on the assumption that monetary values for environment factors cannot be assigned unless people make economic decisions about these factors - The conclusion is environmental economics is stymed by what motivates it - it is clearly supported by the passage.
(B) strongly, unless economic decision-making has not yet had any effect on the things categorized as environmental factors - not relevant to the conclusion

(C) at best weakly, because the passage fails to establish that economic decision-makers do not by and large take adequate account of environmental factors - supporting the conclusion strongly so wrong

(D) at best weakly, because the argument assumes that pollution and other effects on environmental factors rarely result from economic decision-making - supporting the conclusion strongly so wrong

(E) not at all, since the argument is circular, taking that conclusion as one of its premises - supporting the conclusion strongly so wrong

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 853

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2007, 07:51
surbab wrote:
vineetgupta wrote:
The problem that environmental economics aims to remedy is the following: people making economic decisions cannot readily compare environmental factors, such as clean air and the survival of endangered species, with other costs and benefits. As environmental economists recognize, solving this problem requires assigning monetary values to environmental factors. But monetary values result from people comparing costs and benefits in order to arrive at economic decisions. Thus, environmental economics is stymied by what motivates it.

If the considerations advanced in its support are true, the passageтАЩs conclusion is supported
(A) strongly, on the assumption that monetary values for environment factors cannot be assigned unless people make economic decisions about these factors - The conclusion is environmental economics is stymed by what motivates it - it is clearly supported by the passage.
(B) strongly, unless economic decision-making has not yet had any effect on the things categorized as environmental factors - not relevant to the conclusion

(C) at best weakly, because the passage fails to establish that economic decision-makers do not by and large take adequate account of environmental factors - supporting the conclusion strongly so wrong

(D) at best weakly, because the argument assumes that pollution and other effects on environmental factors rarely result from economic decision-making - supporting the conclusion strongly so wrong

(E) not at all, since the argument is circular, taking that conclusion as one of its premises - supporting the conclusion strongly so wrong

Good explanation surbab...The OA is A indeed.

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-monetary values   [#permalink] 22 Apr 2007, 07:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by