Kartikeya40 wrote:
Hello Experts,
IN Q6, can someone please explain why option E is incorrect? If people tend to overestimate the resources available for distribution, it might be the case that they are overestimating the minimum requirement of Primary Goods. And in the same Question, for Option C - My understanding is that even though some people are willing to risk it all for another primary good, it still doesn't weaken that people require minium goods.
Let's make that highlighted sentence super concrete. Let's imagine that a fellow named Tim is in the "original position." That means Tim is self-interested, and he doesn't know anything about his station in life.
The highlighted sentence is saying Tim should believe that everyone deserves to get a minimum amount of primary goods. Let's say the only good in the world is apples. And there are five people in the world. Tim believes that there are 20 apples and 20 oranges in the world and each person deserves to get at least one apple and at least one orange.
We're looking for an answer that says, "actually, maybe Tim doesn't think everyone deserves at least one apple!"
Start with (E):
Quote:
People tend to overestimate the resources available for distribution and to underestimate their own needs.
If this is true, does it mean that Tim no longer believes everyone deserves an apple? Not necessarily. If Tim overestimated the apple supply, that might there are actually 15 apples, not 20. And maybe Tim thought he needed one apple, but he actually needs two.
His fundamental belief that everyone deserves a minimum number of apples and oranges hasn't changed. He's maybe just changed what the minimum value is. But everyone is still getting apples and oranges in this scenario. So (E) doesn't really do the job.
But now look at (C):
Quote:
Some people would be willing to risk a complete loss of one primary good for the chance of obtaining an enormous amount of another primary good.
Well, if this is true, then some people might be willing to forgo apples altogether to get loads of oranges. If someone would be happy with 0 apples in order to get, say, 19 oranges, Tim's in big big trouble!
Suddenly, the framework of everyone needing at least a certain number of apples and oranges no longer works, because there's someone who doesn't want apples at all. And by sacrificing apples, this person may also be dominating the market in oranges, thus depriving others of their daily allotment of citrus. (Hasn't this person heard of scurvy?)
All to say, if (C) is true, it has the potential to mess up the framework of everyone needing a minimum amount of apples and oranges, because someone might not need any apples, so (C) is our answer.
I hope that clears things up!
close
12 Sep 2023, 23:01
