BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
Live EA class + 6 months of EA OnDemand
  • Expert-led weekly online sessions
  • EA Masterclass access between classes
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

130-point score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Kaplan- Experts help

Expert replies
by bryan88 » Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:22 am
The relevance of formal economic models to
real-world policy has been a topic of some dispute.
The economists R. D. Norton and S. Y.
Rhee achieved some success in applying such a
model retrospectively to the Korean economy
over a fourteen-year period; the model's figures
for output, prices, and other variables closely
matched real statistics. The model's value in policy
terms, however, proved less clearcut. Norton
and Rhee performed simulations in which, keeping
long-term factors constant, they tried to pinpoint
the effect of short-term policy changes.
Their model indicated that rising prices for
imported oil would increase inflation; reducing
exports by five percent would lower Gross
Domestic Product and increase inflation; and
slowing the growth of the money supply would
result in slightly higher inflation.

These findings are somewhat startling.
Many economists have argued that reducing
exports will lessen, not increase, inflation. And
while most view escalating oil costs as inflationary,
few would think the same of slower monetary
growth. The Norton-Rhee model can perhaps be
viewed as indicating the pitfalls of a formalist
approach that stresses statistical "goodness of
fit" at the expense of genuine policy relevance.

The most significant criticism leveled against
Norton and Rhee's model is that it
(A) excludes key statistical variables
(B) is too abstract to be useful in policy
making
(C) fails to adjust for Korea's high rate of
inflation
(D) underestimates the importance of
economic growth
(E) fails to consider the effect of short-term
variations in the economy
Join the discussion
Source: — Reading Comprehension |

by bryan88 » Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:23 am
How is E wrong?
Join the discussion

by killer1387 » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:30 am
bryan88 wrote:The relevance of formal economic models to
real-world policy has been a topic of some dispute.
The economists R. D. Norton and S. Y.
Rhee achieved some success in applying such a
model retrospectively to the Korean economy
over a fourteen-year period; the model's figures
for output, prices, and other variables closely
matched real statistics. The model's value in policy
terms, however, proved less clearcut.
Norton
and Rhee performed simulations in which, keeping
long-term factors constant, they tried to pinpoint
the effect of short-term policy changes.

Their model indicated that rising prices for
imported oil would increase inflation; reducing
exports by five percent would lower Gross
Domestic Product and increase inflation; and
slowing the growth of the money supply would
result in slightly higher inflation.

These findings are somewhat startling.
Many economists have argued that reducing
exports will lessen, not increase, inflation. And
while most view escalating oil costs as inflationary,
few would think the same of slower monetary
growth. The Norton-Rhee model can perhaps be
viewed as indicating the pitfalls of a formalist
approach that stresses statistical "goodness of
fit" at the expense of genuine policy relevance.

The most significant criticism leveled against
Norton and Rhee's model is that it
(A) excludes key statistical variables
(B) is too abstract to be useful in policy
making
(C) fails to adjust for Korea's high rate of
inflation
(D) underestimates the importance of
economic growth
(E) fails to consider the effect of short-term
variations in the economy
IMO b
E is mentioned as they took in consideration. Please check the bold part in passage
Join the discussion