Economics Concepts and Theories

According to the author, political economy can be bracketed with all branches of Science, except for its

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

Among the delusions which at different periods have possessed themselves of the minds of large masses of the human race, perhaps the most curious-certainly the least credible-is the modern science of political economy, based on the idea that an advantageous code of social action may be determined irrespectively of the influence of social affection.
Of course, as in the instances of alchemy, astrology, witchcraft, and other such popular creeds, political economy has a plausible idea at the root of it. “The social affections,” says the economist, “are accidental and disturbing elements in human nature; but avarice and the desire of progress are constant elements. Let us eliminate the inconstants, and, considering the human being merely as a covetous machine, examine by what laws of labour, purchase, and sale, the greatest accumulative result in wealth is obtainable. Those laws once determined, it will be for each individual afterwards to introduce as much of the disturbing affectionate element as he chooses, and to determine for himself the result on the new conditions supposed.” 
This would be a perfectly logical and successful method of analysis, if the accidentals afterwards to be introduced were of the same nature as the powers first examined. Supposing a body in motion to be influenced by constant and inconstant forces, it is usually the simplest way of examining its course to trace it first under the persistent conditions, and afterwards introduce the causes of variation.
But the disturbing elements in the social problem are not of the same nature as the constant ones; they alter the essence of the creature under examination the moment they are added; they operate, not mathematically, but chemically, introducing conditions which render all our previous knowledge unavailable. We made learned experiments upon pure nitrogen, and have convinced ourselves that it is a very manageable gas: but behold ! the thing which we have practically to deal with is its chloride; and this, the moment we touch it on our established principles, sends us and our apparatus through the ceiling.
It is not for us to impugn or doubt the conclusions of the science, if its terms are accepted. We should simply be uninterested in them, as we should be in those of a science of gymnastics which assumed that men had no skeletons. It might be shown, on that supposition, that it would be advantageous to roll the students up into pellets, flatten them into cakes, or stretch them into cables; and that when these results were effected, the re-insertion of the skeleton would be attended with various inconveniences to their constitution. The reasoning might be admirable, the conclusions true, and the science deficient only in applicability.
Modern political economy stands on a precisely similar basis. Assuming, not that the human has no skeleton, but that it is all skeleton, it founds an ossifiant theory of progress on this negation of a soul; and having shown the utmost that may be made of bones, and constructed a number of interesting geometrical figures with death’s-heads and humeri, successfully proves the inconvenience of the reappearance of a soul among these corpuscular structures. We would not deny the truth of this theory: we may simply deny its applicability to the present phase of the world. (Excerpted from John Ruskin’s Unto This Last)

Read the following options and select all that apply. I. The account of conqueror takes on a degree of verisimilitude. II. Cataclysms are stimulated by a dominoes effect. III. Poor governance set forth the chain of events that led to the depression.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
While historians focus mainly on the macro events that cause perceptible changes, the economists are more concerned with the minute details. It is a well known fact that many a time in history, the act of a single person has been responsible for a paradigm shift in the way the story is told. The economists go into the most exiguous detail possible to reach a conclusion. Also, the history is written by the victor, but economics thrives on various theories put forth by a multitude of experts. It therefore comes as no surprise that, even on an event of the magnitude of the Great Depression, the experts in the two subjects have conflicting views.
While the historians ascribe the meltdown to a host of macro factors like the cataclysmic crash of the stock market, the failure of the banks, and unemployment, the economists are more intent on finding the nuances and the recondite riff surrounding the turn of events. According to them, the rot in the system started much before and the Great Depression was actually a culmination of causative events rather than the starting point itself. They point towards the deflationary actions of the Federal Reserve, including regulating the currency in circulation in accordance to the Gold Standard and increasing the interest rates as some of the principal causes behind the fiasco. Also, the fact that Great Britain went back to pre World War Gold Standard also set in motion a set of protectionist policies that killed off trade between nations and added fuel to the fire. Although government spending, or rather the lack of it, is blamed for the crisis, a casual perusal of government spending in 1930 clearly points out that the governmental spending actually increased year on year in an effort to revive the economy. However, in a case of too little, too late, the actions failed to yield the desired results.
The historians cite bank failures and the reluctance of banks to lend money as a key factor. Blaming the lack of foresight by the financial regulators and the government, the economists contend that the stock market crash so frightened the common citizens that the they stopped spending. The decreased spending triggered off a chain of events that had far reaching repercussions. Businesses struggling to keep their heads above the water laid off employees to cut costs. This in turn, resulted in further reduction in consumer spending.
It is in our best interest if reconciliation between these two fields of study can be effected. It will allow us to sum up the findings with a degree of consensus that appeals not only to the scholars of economics but also to the historians who look for patterns in history.

How can the layout of the passage be described?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
While historians focus mainly on the macro events that cause perceptible changes, the economists are more concerned with the minute details. It is a well known fact that many a time in history, the act of a single person has been responsible for a paradigm shift in the way the story is told. The economists go into the most exiguous detail possible to reach a conclusion. Also, the history is written by the victor, but economics thrives on various theories put forth by a multitude of experts. It therefore comes as no surprise that, even on an event of the magnitude of the Great Depression, the experts in the two subjects have conflicting views.
While the historians ascribe the meltdown to a host of macro factors like the cataclysmic crash of the stock market, the failure of the banks, and unemployment, the economists are more intent on finding the nuances and the recondite riff surrounding the turn of events. According to them, the rot in the system started much before and the Great Depression was actually a culmination of causative events rather than the starting point itself. They point towards the deflationary actions of the Federal Reserve, including regulating the currency in circulation in accordance to the Gold Standard and increasing the interest rates as some of the principal causes behind the fiasco. Also, the fact that Great Britain went back to pre World War Gold Standard also set in motion a set of protectionist policies that killed off trade between nations and added fuel to the fire. Although government spending, or rather the lack of it, is blamed for the crisis, a casual perusal of government spending in 1930 clearly points out that the governmental spending actually increased year on year in an effort to revive the economy. However, in a case of too little, too late, the actions failed to yield the desired results.
The historians cite bank failures and the reluctance of banks to lend money as a key factor. Blaming the lack of foresight by the financial regulators and the government, the economists contend that the stock market crash so frightened the common citizens that the they stopped spending. The decreased spending triggered off a chain of events that had far reaching repercussions. Businesses struggling to keep their heads above the water laid off employees to cut costs. This in turn, resulted in further reduction in consumer spending.
It is in our best interest if reconciliation between these two fields of study can be effected. It will allow us to sum up the findings with a degree of consensus that appeals not only to the scholars of economics but also to the historians who look for patterns in history.

What according to the passage is the main cause of bickering about the Great Depression between the two fields of study?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
While historians focus mainly on the macro events that cause perceptible changes, the economists are more concerned with the minute details. It is a well known fact that many a time in history, the act of a single person has been responsible for a paradigm shift in the way the story is told. The economists go into the most exiguous detail possible to reach a conclusion. Also, the history is written by the victor, but economics thrives on various theories put forth by a multitude of experts. It therefore comes as no surprise that, even on an event of the magnitude of the Great Depression, the experts in the two subjects have conflicting views.
While the historians ascribe the meltdown to a host of macro factors like the cataclysmic crash of the stock market, the failure of the banks, and unemployment, the economists are more intent on finding the nuances and the recondite riff surrounding the turn of events. According to them, the rot in the system started much before and the Great Depression was actually a culmination of causative events rather than the starting point itself. They point towards the deflationary actions of the Federal Reserve, including regulating the currency in circulation in accordance to the Gold Standard and increasing the interest rates as some of the principal causes behind the fiasco. Also, the fact that Great Britain went back to pre World War Gold Standard also set in motion a set of protectionist policies that killed off trade between nations and added fuel to the fire. Although government spending, or rather the lack of it, is blamed for the crisis, a casual perusal of government spending in 1930 clearly points out that the governmental spending actually increased year on year in an effort to revive the economy. However, in a case of too little, too late, the actions failed to yield the desired results.
The historians cite bank failures and the reluctance of banks to lend money as a key factor. Blaming the lack of foresight by the financial regulators and the government, the economists contend that the stock market crash so frightened the common citizens that the they stopped spending. The decreased spending triggered off a chain of events that had far reaching repercussions. Businesses struggling to keep their heads above the water laid off employees to cut costs. This in turn, resulted in further reduction in consumer spending.
It is in our best interest if reconciliation between these two fields of study can be effected. It will allow us to sum up the findings with a degree of consensus that appeals not only to the scholars of economics but also to the historians who look for patterns in history.