@ohthatpatrick
Would you be willing to help me out and clarify where in the passage you gathered the info for the point you made in #3? "they realize that human indicators could do well, whether or not GNP goes down, goes up, or stays the same."
This question has tripped me up and i think it's because i still don't understand it fully.
Been following a few of your other replies here and your post helped me to greatly understand Sufficient Assumption questions the other day.
I appreciate your time!!
- Bridgette
ohthatpatrick Wrote:I'm not sure I understood this sentence of yours:
"Human Indicator focuses on domestic production of goods and improvements on human indicator".
Let's clarify the two distinct measures of economic health:
GNP: value of goods produced divided by population
Human Indicators: nutrition, life expectancy, birth weight, infant mortality, resource availability, employment opportunities, education, clean water, medicine, etc.
How can we simplify the "views expressed in the last passage"?
1- some nations are deciding NOT to focus on GDP, but rather to focus on human indicators
2- they think that they need to shift their focus from GDP (material wealth) in order to protect/improve human indicators (well-being of the nation)
3- they realize that human indicators could do well, whether or not GNP goes down, goes up, or stays the same.
(B) is a counterexample to the 2nd point made here. (B) describes nations who focus on GNP and get improved human indicators. The nations in the last paragraph, by contrast, felt that they should NOT focus on GNP in order to get improvement in human indicators.
(A) focus on human indicators results in slower GNP -- this is consistent with the 3rd point
(C) focus on human indicators results in improved GNP - this is consistent with the 3rd point
(D) focus on human indicators results in improved GNP -- this is consistent with the 3rd point
(E) focus on GNP results in no improvement of human indicators -- this is consistent with the 1st and 2nd point
I hope this helps.