Q25 - Economist: In order to decide

[adarsh.murthy]

I dont understand why D is right. The economist does mention "such a determination does amount to a calculation of monetory value of the ozone layer". Option D is wrong: The economist does give a way(right or wrong!) to calculate the monetory value.

Can you please explain whats going on? I cant figure out what I am missing..

Thanks!

[noah]

Good question. (By the way, I edited out the quoted answer choice so that LSAC doesn't give you a hard time about copyright infringement.)

The conclusion of this argument is that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value. Why? Because it must be worth less than all the world's economic value.

Hmmm. That seems fishy. I can accept that the ozone layer must be worth less than all the world, but does that mean it has a calculable monetary value? Maybe we still can't calculate it - either it's too difficult a calculation, or maybe the ozone layer's value doesn't translate to money.

(D) notes this flaw - why are we supposed to think the layer's value is incalculable just because we know an upper limit to its value? What might have tripped you up about this is that it's not saying that the economist hasn't given us a way to calculate it, it's that the economist hasn't given us a way to draw our conclusion (it's calculable) based on the fact that there's an upper limit.

(A) is tempting since the first part is getting to the flaw, but the second part--that any natural resource is less--doesn't match the conclusion.

(B) is out of scope. There's no discussion of whether to protect it.

(C) is tricky if you focused on the economist's saying the ozone layer doesn't have a calculable monetary value. But, everyone's using the word "value" to mean the same thing throughout this argument.

(E) is wrong - the economist does address the environmentalist's argument. Just because it's a flawed attempt to address it doesn't mean it didn't occur!

I hope that clears it up.

[ezraryu]

I thought the reason perhaps is because even if the ozone layer is worth "less" than the world's economic resources, there is no guarantee the world's economic resources, when combined, will have a calculable monetary value. In other words, all of the world's economic resources might be above the "calculable monetary value" group as well as the ozone layer. Naturally, the Economist's reasoning doesn't prove the ozone layer can be estimated in terms of money. I think this explanation fits quite well with the answer choice D.