Confusion Over Multiple Choice Question (1 Viewer)

[munchiecrunchie]

I'm definitely with lyounamu on this one - the answer is A.

If you deconstruct the question, it is examining which government action will BEST preserve the environment, NOT which one is more practical, NOT what's best for the govt, nor the economy. Its purely asking for what is the best outcome for the environnment, and that is obviously a ban on polluting products.

The textbook made a mistake, its definitely A.

 

[Bainesy]

yea its B, very clearly.

A is stupid, just like beyond stupid. "Ok you can no longer produce electricity or water as these harm the environment, so its back to the dark ages people. the environment needs us". like from an economics viewpoint, thats just stupidity.

C is also stupid for the same reason as A. when you get to the limit imposed by the quota, what are you going to do? shut down every industry on the planet? yea, gl with that.

your initial reasoning is ok. but when you analyse your answer for just a few seconds your can see how it makes no sense. its clearly B. like not even clearly, painstakingly obvious that its B.

oh so obvious...

 

[michael1990]

I agree that (A) is the most effective way, but the way i see it is that leading edge has taken the most economically sustainable way. btw did ur teacher mark u wrong?

Yes, we were told the correct answer was (B).

 

[michael1990]

I'm definitely with lyounamu on this one - the answer is A.

If you deconstruct the question, it is examining which government action will BEST preserve the environment, NOT which one is more practical, NOT what's best for the govt, nor the economy. Its purely asking for what is the best outcome for the environnment, and that is obviously a ban on polluting products.

The textbook made a mistake, its definitely A.

Agreed totally.

The question isn't asking for the impact or best was the have SUSTAINABLE economic growth. Just which policy would be the most effective way!

 

[tau281290]

yea its B, very clearly.

A is stupid, just like beyond stupid. "Ok you can no longer produce electricity or water as these harm the environment, so its back to the dark ages people. the environment needs us". like from an economics viewpoint, thats just stupidity.

C is also stupid for the same reason as A. when you get to the limit imposed by the quota, what are you going to do? shut down every industry on the planet? yea, gl with that.

your initial reasoning is ok. but when you analyse your answer for just a few seconds your can see how it makes no sense. its clearly B. like not even clearly, painstakingly obvious that its B.

oh so obvious...

That's right. Obviously it is B.

If you read the question it has no reference to Economic Growth, Unemployment or anything other IMPACT it clearly asks:

Q10. Which of the following government policies would be the most effective at preserving the natural environment?

(A) Banning the production of goods which create air pollution

(B) Taxing the production of goods which create air pollution

(C) Setting a quota on the production of goods which create air pollution

(D) Subsidising the production of goods which create air pollution.

The MOST EFFECTIVE way.
Banning is the most effective.

You're stating the impacts of the ban, we are not discussing the impacts.

Don't just think of the single question, think holistically about the entire economics course. Then you will realize that B is definitely the right nswer. Both A and C would be ineffective rather than effective.

This is not a really hard question at all. Just look at the blatantly pathetic D then you will know this question is not a hard question.

 

[michael1990]

yea its B, very clearly.

A is stupid, just like beyond stupid. "Ok you can no longer produce electricity or water as these harm the environment, so its back to the dark ages people. the environment needs us". like from an economics viewpoint, thats just stupidity.

C is also stupid for the same reason as A. when you get to the limit imposed by the quota, what are you going to do? shut down every industry on the planet? yea, gl with that.

your initial reasoning is ok. but when you analyse your answer for just a few seconds your can see how it makes no sense. its clearly B. like not even clearly, painstakingly obvious that its B.

oh so obvious...

I can see the reasoning for (B) but if you disect the question. Its just asking for the most effective way. Well the most effective way to stop pollution would be to ban it.

(C) is more correct than (B). I am pretty sure that there is a limit already on the amount of pollution a company can produce.

I have a few websites that prove there are limits on pollution.
http://www.gamelicences.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/env/emissionlimits.html

This is in the future (2012), implemented by the EU.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/21/2125119.htm

And just one other.
http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/gvgpublicui/StaticContent/air_pollution.aspx

Therefore, (C) would be better than (B). But now we are going to far into the question, we are supposed to be looking at the most effective way.

 

[michael1990]

That's right. Obviously it is B.

Don't just think of the single question, think holistically about the entire economics course. Then you will realize that B is definitely the right nswer. Both A and C would be ineffective rather than effective.

This is not a really hard question at all. Just look at the blatantly pathetic D then you will know this question is not a hard question.

If you look at the question. It doesn't ask for you to look at the impacts or the most sustainable. It clearly asks for the most effective. This would be the most effective. (A)

 

[tau281290]

Just look at the economics course holistically as I've said. You are better off answering it from an economist's point of view rather than an environmentalist's POV. (or even from a point of view that rigidly dissects the question)

A is definitely INeffective, rather than effective. And for C, the government is not planning to use this policy any time soon. Carbon trading scheme is a form of taxation.

 

[gnrlies]

I think you are probably all thinking about this too hard.

The answer is: the question is not worded particularly well. You won't get an unclear question like this in the HSC

Does this help everyone out?

Obviously if you kill everyone in the world then you wont have any crime in the same way as if you ban products that pollute then we will have no pollution. So applying this logic; A is a better answer than the others, but is an absurd solution to the problem. I would probably think that the word effective should be replaced with efficient. Then you could in fact say that B would be the best answer as A would now suddenly be an inneficient way of achieving the desired outcome.

As for C;

this is where it gets tricky. Most carbon trading schemes are going to be cap and trade schemes which is kind of like a hybrid between a quota and a tax on carbon. So because this is actually being used as a practical solution to a problem; it is hard to argue against this answer.

B is a more conventional answer as economists have often talked about 'internalising the externality' through use of a tax which raises the price to equal the public cost of the externality, but given the difficulty involved in calculating how much of a tax is required; this solution is far to idealistic for the real world (which is why we are using a cap and trade system rather than a straight out carbon tax)

 

[tau281290]

gnrlies always answer questions well =)

r u doing economics in uni?

 

[michael1990]

I think you are probably all thinking about this too hard.

The answer is: the question is not worded particularly well. You won't get an unclear question like this in the HSC

Does this help everyone out?

Obviously if you kill everyone in the world then you wont have any crime in the same way as if you ban products that pollute then we will have no pollution. So applying this logic; A is a better answer than the others, but is an absurd solution to the problem. I would probably think that the word effective should be replaced with efficient. Then you could in fact say that B would be the best answer as A would now suddenly be an inneficient way of achieving the desired outcome.

As for C;

this is where it gets tricky. Most carbon trading schemes are going to be cap and trade schemes which is kind of like a hybrid between a quota and a tax on carbon. So because this is actually being used as a practical solution to a problem; it is hard to argue against this answer.

B is a more conventional answer as economists have often talked about 'internalising the externality' through use of a tax which raises the price to equal the public cost of the externality, but given the difficulty involved in calculating how much of a tax is required; this solution is far to idealistic for the real world (which is why we are using a cap and trade system rather than a straight out carbon tax)

That makes perfect sense.
So according to this question (A) is the correct answers. But if it was worded the way it should have been worded then (B) would be the correct answer?

 

[Zrap]

Economic Multiple Choices are the hardest

 

[shsshs]

hey michael1990, observing how stubborn you are about this question, and the way you approach your argument, i can only gather that you are trying to scab 1 more mark for your assessment that youve just had.

I recommend you put your energy into more productive things for your hsc.

 

[Zrap]

Yeah build a bridge and get over it, or harden the fuck up

 

[michael1990]

hey michael1990, observing how stubborn you are about this question, and the way you approach your argument, i can only gather that you are trying to scab 1 more mark for your assessment that youve just had.

I recommend you put your energy into more productive things for your hsc.

It wasn't part of any sort of assessment. We were just going through some questions and this one popped up.

I agree, like i don't really care. I'm just a very stubborn person.

 

[8th1da]

what you must realise is economics is the study of satisfying unlimited wants with scarce resource. hence you cannot ban the production of goods and service which create pollution, this would result in nothing being produced as everything requires transport, wether it be by truck, car or boat. This being said companies must take responsibility for the pollution they make, this can be achieved through (B). if companies are unwilling to adhere to protection of the environment the most effective way to stop this would be to increase tax's to force them to find more ecollogically friendly methods of development and even if they dont comply the money raised from these taxs could be used for carbon ofseting for example

 

[liam9519]

I have a high level of respect for you lyounamu.

Because he chose the same answer as you?

 

[Graney]

what you must realise is economics is the study of satisfying unlimited wants with scarce resource. hence you cannot ban the production of goods and service which create pollution, this would result in nothing being produced as everything requires transport, wether it be by truck, car or boat.

What if I was to transport goods without creating air pollution- my emission free truck, car, boat, horse drawn cart!

Emissions free production!

What then huh?

 

[gnrlies]

That makes perfect sense.
So according to this question (A) is the correct answers. But if it was worded the way it should have been worded then (B) would be the correct answer?

Well as I said, its not worded well so if you take the wording literally then yes.

But please realise that if this were an HSC question both A, B, and C would be accepted as correct answers (they do this when a technicality makes another answer potentially correct). This probably indicates that you would never get this type of question in the HSC. They get very highly scrutinised before they are put to press.

 

[michael1990]

Well as I said, its not worded well so if you take the wording literally then yes.

But please realise that if this were an HSC question both A, B, and C would be accepted as correct answers (they do this when a technicality makes another answer potentially correct). This probably indicates that you would never get this type of question in the HSC. They get very highly scrutinised before they are put to press.

Wow, thank you so much for that.

Its good to know.