Reading Comprehension

In OA E the ACTUAL LANGUAGE wouldnt the meaning of the world Actual be referring to the actual languages used. But in the passage it is used in a very generic way.

It shall be great if some one could explain whats wrong with A too ? Since languages were used to articulate business relations and then - that language expressed credit , trust ,obligations and contracts rather than self interest .

Neilsheth2 wrote:In OA E the ACTUAL LANGUAGE wouldnt the meaning of the world Actual be referring to the actual languages used. But in the passage it is used in a very generic way.

It shall be great if some one could explain whats wrong with A too ? Since languages were used to articulate business relations and then - that language expressed credit , trust ,obligations and contracts rather than self interest .

First, we're looking for what economic historians have failed to examine. The first line of the second paragraph: However, such a view fails to account for the language that people in early modern England used to articulate their understanding of business relations, language that stressed credit, trust, obligation and contracts...

The "language that people in early modern England used" can be described as their actual language.

As for A, the last line of paragraph 1 shows that these historians did consider the impact of business relations on moral values and beliefs.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Neilsheth2 wrote:In OA E the ACTUAL LANGUAGE wouldnt the meaning of the world Actual be referring to the actual languages used. But in the passage it is used in a very generic way.

It shall be great if some one could explain whats wrong with A too ? Since languages were used to articulate business relations and then - that language expressed credit , trust ,obligations and contracts rather than self interest .

First, we're looking for what economic historians have failed to examine. The first line of the second paragraph: However, such a view fails to account for the language that people in early modern England used to articulate their understanding of business relations, language that stressed credit, trust, obligation and contracts...

The "language that people in early modern England used" can be described as their actual language.

As for A, the last line of paragraph 1 shows that these historians did consider the impact of business relations on moral values and beliefs.

David

I fumbled on this question because I could not find "economic historians" anywhere in the passage. Can you please help me here.

Thanks

a_new_start wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Neilsheth2 wrote:In OA E the ACTUAL LANGUAGE wouldnt the meaning of the world Actual be referring to the actual languages used. But in the passage it is used in a very generic way.

It shall be great if some one could explain whats wrong with A too ? Since languages were used to articulate business relations and then - that language expressed credit , trust ,obligations and contracts rather than self interest .

First, we're looking for what economic historians have failed to examine. The first line of the second paragraph: However, such a view fails to account for the language that people in early modern England used to articulate their understanding of business relations, language that stressed credit, trust, obligation and contracts...

The "language that people in early modern England used" can be described as their actual language.

As for A, the last line of paragraph 1 shows that these historians did consider the impact of business relations on moral values and beliefs.

David

I fumbled on this question because I could not find "economic historians" anywhere in the passage. Can you please help me here.

Thanks

Sometimes you have to read between the lines a little bit. The passage is about the influence of a work by the economist Adam Smith. It's fair to call the people who have written about the impact of Smith's work 'economic historians,' as they're writing about economic history. In essence the author is referring to the group of people who are responsible for the conventional theory regarding the legacy of Smith's work. (And it's not as though there are other groups in the passage that one might confuse with these economic historians. There's a brief discussion of The Wealth of Nations. There's a mention of the conventional wisdom supposedly espoused by economic historians. And then the author points out what these historians have overlooked.)

Please explain why A or B is incorrect and D is the right answer.

Mechmeera wrote:Please explain why A or B is incorrect and D is the right answer.

A) This passage isn't about a theory of human nature in general. It's a question of our understanding of business relations.

Here's the first line of paragraph 2: However, such a view fails to account for the language that people in early modern England used to articulate their understanding of business relations.

B) The passage isn't about the impact of Adam Smith. Adam Smith is mentioned to set up a contrast two theories of business relations: 1) that they're rooted in self-interest and 2) that, in actuality, they're about trust and commitment.

D) In paragraph 1 we get our accepted idea about business relations. In paragraph 2, we get an analysis reconsidering this idea. So we have our answer. (And notice that paragraph 2 begins with the transition However, a good indication that something is going to be reconsidered or refuted.)