Mu Sigma Reading Comprehension Quiz-1

Question 1

Time: 00:00:00

Read the given passage and answer the following questions :

After the end of World War II, a pervasive, but unfortunately fallacious, economic perspective took hold. Based on the United States’ successful emergence from the Depression, the idea that war was good for an economy became fashionable. However, linking the United States economic recovery with its entry into World War II is a prime example of flawed economic thinking.

Supporters of the war benefit economy theory held that a country at war is a country with a booming economy. Industry must produce weapons, supplies, food, and clothing for the troops. The increased production necessitates the hiring of more people, reducing unemployment.

More employment means more money in the pockets of citizens, who are then likely to go out and spend that money, helping the retail sector of the economy. Retail shops experience an increase in business and may need to hire more workers, further reducing unemployment and adding to the economic momentum. While this scenario sounds good in theory, it does not accurately represent what truly happens in a wartime economy.

In reality, the government can fund a war in a combination of three ways. It can raise taxes, cut spending on other areas, or increase the national debt. Each of these strategies has a negative impact on the economy. An increase in taxes takes money out of an individual’s hands, leading to a reduction in consumer spending. Clearly, there is no net benefit to the economy in that case. Cutting spending in other areas has its costs as well, even if they are not as obvious.

Any reduction in government spending means the imposition of a greater burden on the benefactors of that government spending. Cutbacks in a particular program mean that the people who normally depend on that program now must spend more of their money to make up for the government cuts. This also takes money out of consumers’ hands and leaves the economy depressed. Of course, a government could go into debt during the war, but such a strategy simply means that at some point in the future, taxes must be increased or spending decreased. Plus, the interest on the debt must be paid as well.

The "pervasive…economic perspective" mentioned in line 1 took hold because:

observers took the appearance of one phenomenon with another to indicate that one caused the other.

the U.S. would not have emerged from the Depression had it not entered World War II

the booming economy during wartime created thousands of jobs in the U.S.

most people are not trained to think in economic terms

economists confused an event that was necessary for an outcome to occur with one that is merely sufficient to bring about that outcome

Good Job!

Oops!

PrepInsta Explanation
User Explanation

Once you attempt the question then PrepInsta explanation will be displayed.

Please login to submit your explanation

Question 2

Time: 00:00:00

After the end of World War II, a pervasive, but unfortunately fallacious, economic perspective took hold. Based on the United States’ successful emergence from the Depression, the idea that war was good for an economy became fashionable. However, linking the United States economic recovery with its entry into World War II is a prime example of flawed economic thinking.

Supporters of the war benefit economy theory held that a country at war is a country with a booming economy. Industry must produce weapons, supplies, food, and clothing for the troops. The increased production necessitates the hiring of more people, reducing unemployment.

More employment means more money in the pockets of citizens, who are then likely to go out and spend that money, helping the retail sector of the economy. Retail shops experience an increase in business and may need to hire more workers, further reducing unemployment and adding to the economic momentum. While this scenario sounds good in theory, it does not accurately represent what truly happens in a wartime economy.

In reality, the government can fund a war in a combination of three ways. It can raise taxes, cut spending on other areas, or increase the national debt. Each of these strategies has a negative impact on the economy. An increase in taxes takes money out of an individual’s hands, leading to a reduction in consumer spending. Clearly, there is no net benefit to the economy in that case. Cutting spending in other areas has its costs as well, even if they are not as obvious.

Any reduction in government spending means the imposition of a greater burden on the benefactors of that government spending. Cutbacks in a particular program mean that the people who normally depend on that program now must spend more of their money to make up for the government cuts. This also takes money out of consumers’ hands and leaves the economy depressed. Of course, a government could go into debt during the war, but such a strategy simply means that at some point in the future, taxes must be increased or spending decreased. Plus, the interest on the debt must be paid as well.

Which of the following situations best mirrors the effect that cutting spending in government programs has, as detailed in the passage?

Government cutbacks on public works maintenance lead to a deterioration of roads, which creates more work for private construction firms.

A decrease in the federal education budget causes certain schools to close, which forces families to send their children to schools that are farther away.

A federal decrease in unemployment payments causes some individuals who would otherwise remain on unemployment to seek jobs.

Government cuts in housing subsidies result in fewer houses being built.

A reduction in the federal spending on food safety inspections leads to a rash of illnesses and an increase in the amount of money spent on medicine.

Good Job!

Oops!

PrepInsta Explanation
User Explanation

Once you attempt the question then PrepInsta explanation will be displayed.

Please login to submit your explanation

Question 3

Time: 00:00:00

After the end of World War II, a pervasive, but unfortunately fallacious, economic perspective took hold. Based on the United States’ successful emergence from the Depression, the idea that war was good for an economy became fashionable. However, linking the United States economic recovery with its entry into World War II is a prime example of flawed economic thinking.

Supporters of the war benefit economy theory held that a country at war is a country with a booming economy. Industry must produce weapons, supplies, food, and clothing for the troops. The increased production necessitates the hiring of more people, reducing unemployment.

More employment means more money in the pockets of citizens, who are then likely to go out and spend that money, helping the retail sector of the economy. Retail shops experience an increase in business and may need to hire more workers, further reducing unemployment and adding to the economic momentum. While this scenario sounds good in theory, it does not accurately represent what truly happens in a wartime economy.

In reality, the government can fund a war in a combination of three ways. It can raise taxes, cut spending on other areas, or increase the national debt. Each of these strategies has a negative impact on the economy. An increase in taxes takes money out of an individual’s hands, leading to a reduction in consumer spending. Clearly, there is no net benefit to the economy in that case. Cutting spending in other areas has its costs as well, even if they are not as obvious.

Any reduction in government spending means the imposition of a greater burden on the benefactors of that government spending. Cutbacks in a particular program mean that the people who normally depend on that program now must spend more of their money to make up for the government cuts. This also takes money out of consumers’ hands and leaves the economy depressed. Of course, a government could go into debt during the war, but such a strategy simply means that at some point in the future, taxes must be increased or spending decreased. Plus, the interest on the debt must be paid as well.

The passage implies which of the following about a government that funds a war by increasing the national debt?

It is no worse off than it would be funding a war by cutting spending or increasing taxes.

The initial costs it incurs are less than with the other two methods, but the future costs are greater.

It must increase taxes in order to pay off the interest on the debt.

If the government does not increase taxes or decrease spending, its economy will not recover.

It receives a net benefit to the economy greater than it would achieve with either of the other two methods.

Good Job!

Oops!

PrepInsta Explanation
User Explanation

Once you attempt the question then PrepInsta explanation will be displayed.

Please login to submit your explanation

Question 4

Time: 00:00:00

After the end of World War II, a pervasive, but unfortunately fallacious, economic perspective took hold. Based on the United States’ successful emergence from the Depression, the idea that war was good for an economy became fashionable. However, linking the United States economic recovery with its entry into World War II is a prime example of flawed economic thinking.

Supporters of the war benefit economy theory held that a country at war is a country with a booming economy. Industry must produce weapons, supplies, food, and clothing for the troops. The increased production necessitates the hiring of more people, reducing unemployment.

More employment means more money in the pockets of citizens, who are then likely to go out and spend that money, helping the retail sector of the economy. Retail shops experience an increase in business and may need to hire more workers, further reducing unemployment and adding to the economic momentum. While this scenario sounds good in theory, it does not accurately represent what truly happens in a wartime economy.

In reality, the government can fund a war in a combination of three ways. It can raise taxes, cut spending on other areas, or increase the national debt. Each of these strategies has a negative impact on the economy. An increase in taxes takes money out of an individual’s hands, leading to a reduction in consumer spending. Clearly, there is no net benefit to the economy in that case. Cutting spending in other areas has its costs as well, even if they are not as obvious.

Any reduction in government spending means the imposition of a greater burden on the benefactors of that government spending. Cutbacks in a particular program mean that the people who normally depend on that program now must spend more of their money to make up for the government cuts. This also takes money out of consumers’ hands and leaves the economy depressed. Of course, a government could go into debt during the war, but such a strategy simply means that at some point in the future, taxes must be increased or spending decreased. Plus, the interest on the debt must be paid as well.

The second paragraph of the passage performs which of the following functions?

It describes the common economic benefits of a wartime economy.

It provides the background information necessary to understand the information in the third paragraph.

It explains what happened to the United States’ economy during World War II.

It presents a possible objection to the author’s main thesis.

It helps explain why individuals might hold the viewpoint presented in the first paragraph.

Good Job!

Oops!

PrepInsta Explanation
User Explanation

Once you attempt the question then PrepInsta explanation will be displayed.

Please login to submit your explanation

Question 5

Time: 00:00:00

Read the given passage and answer the following questions :

In the pantheon of great thinkers, Karl Marx certainly ranks as one of the most influential, even if it has been said that no thinker has ever had his words more badly misrepresented, by supporters and detractors alike, than Karl Marx. After Marx, no social discipline was safe from an assault by Marxist thinkers. However, while the views and insights brought to bear by Marxists have helped to illuminate relationships in some disciplines, the Marxist worldview has been less successful when applied to certain human interactions.

For example, Marxist perspectives on global power relations have been assailed by many critics. Because Marx himself was especially concerned with economics, his followers have tended to elevate economic concerns, including the class struggle and control over the means of production, over all other areas. Thus, when analyzing the balance of power on a global level, key concepts such as nationalism, security, and the state are virtually ignored by Marxist scholars.

On a theoretical level, it may be useful to strip away these concepts to more closely examine certain other dynamics at work, but the Marxist view often fails to describe what actually happens in the real world. Consider the strong nationalism evident in Poland, even after generations of the one-party Communist rule.

Also, the Marxist devotion to capitalism leads to simplifications on the world stage. Marxist political scientists typically refer to the "world capitalist system" when analyzing interactions among nations, but this definition has less and less relevance when applied to the variety of economies at work in the world. Where do countries with transitional or developing economies such as China, Russia, and North Korea fit into this schema? Ultimately, a Marxist view of global interactions sacrifices a great many crucial concepts at the altar of one overarching economic perspective. Some critics have likened such a view to an analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that neglects to discuss the protagonist and his motivations.

The passage suggests which of the following about Karl Marx?

Marx has had more influence on more disciplines than has any other thinker.

He focused too much of his efforts on economic issues.

Some believe the meaning of his work has been distorted to support a variety of views.

Marx launched an assault on the social sciences.

Marx’s views have been less than successful in describing economic relationships.

Good Job!

Oops!

PrepInsta Explanation
User Explanation

Once you attempt the question then PrepInsta explanation will be displayed.

Please login to submit your explanation

Question 6

Time: 00:00:00

In the pantheon of great thinkers, Karl Marx certainly ranks as one of the most influential, even if it has been said that no thinker has ever had his words more badly misrepresented, by supporters and detractors alike, than Karl Marx. After Marx, no social discipline was safe from an assault by Marxist thinkers. However, while the views and insights brought to bear by Marxists have helped to illuminate relationships in some disciplines, the Marxist worldview has been less successful when applied to certain human interactions.

For example, Marxist perspectives on global power relations have been assailed by many critics. Because Marx himself was especially concerned with economics, his followers have tended to elevate economic concerns, including the class struggle and control over the means of production, over all other areas. Thus, when analyzing the balance of power on a global level, key concepts such as nationalism, security, and the state are virtually ignored by Marxist scholars.

On a theoretical level, it may be useful to strip away these concepts to more closely examine certain other dynamics at work, but the Marxist view often fails to describe what actually happens in the real world. Consider the strong nationalism evident in Poland, even after generations of the one-party Communist rule.

Also, the Marxist devotion to capitalism leads to simplifications on the world stage. Marxist political scientists typically refer to the "world capitalist system" when analyzing interactions among nations, but this definition has less and less relevance when applied to the variety of economies at work in the world. Where do countries with transitional or developing economies such as China, Russia, and North Korea fit into this schema? Ultimately, a Marxist view of global interactions sacrifices a great many crucial concepts at the altar of one overarching economic perspective. Some critics have likened such a view to an analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that neglects to discuss the protagonist and his motivations.

The author of the passage most probably discusses Poland in order to:

refute an argument about the viability of Communism as an economic system

highlight an example of a country in which Communism has failed to take hold

demonstrate how theoretical descriptions of nationalism conform to real world examples

provide an illustration of a deficiency in the viewpoint held by certain scholars

prove that Marxist scholars have been unable to accurately describe the real world

Good Job!

Oops!

PrepInsta Explanation
User Explanation

Once you attempt the question then PrepInsta explanation will be displayed.

Please login to submit your explanation

Question 7

Time: 00:00:00

In the pantheon of great thinkers, Karl Marx certainly ranks as one of the most influential, even if it has been said that no thinker has ever had his words more badly misrepresented, by supporters and detractors alike, than Karl Marx. After Marx, no social discipline was safe from an assault by Marxist thinkers. However, while the views and insights brought to bear by Marxists have helped to illuminate relationships in some disciplines, the Marxist worldview has been less successful when applied to certain human interactions.

For example, Marxist perspectives on global power relations have been assailed by many critics. Because Marx himself was especially concerned with economics, his followers have tended to elevate economic concerns, including the class struggle and control over the means of production, over all other areas. Thus, when analyzing the balance of power on a global level, key concepts such as nationalism, security, and the state are virtually ignored by Marxist scholars.

On a theoretical level, it may be useful to strip away these concepts to more closely examine certain other dynamics at work, but the Marxist view often fails to describe what actually happens in the real world. Consider the strong nationalism evident in Poland, even after generations of the one-party Communist rule.

Also, the Marxist devotion to capitalism leads to simplifications on the world stage. Marxist political scientists typically refer to the "world capitalist system" when analyzing interactions among nations, but this definition has less and less relevance when applied to the variety of economies at work in the world. Where do countries with transitional or developing economies such as China, Russia, and North Korea fit into this schema? Ultimately, a Marxist view of global interactions sacrifices a great many crucial concepts at the altar of one overarching economic perspective. Some critics have likened such a view to an analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that neglects to discuss the protagonist and his motivations.

The passage suggests that the author would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements?

Global power relations are too complex to be effectively explained in terms of a single variable.

The Marxist view of global relations should be abandoned because of its failures to accurately describe the world.

The economies of China, Russia, and Korea will eventually transition to fully fledged capitalism.

Marx’s followers have misrepresented his work in an effort to apply his economic ideas to a global setting.

Any view of global relationships must include concepts of nationalism, security, and the state in order to accurately describe the world.

Good Job!

Oops!

PrepInsta Explanation
User Explanation

Once you attempt the question then PrepInsta explanation will be displayed.

Please login to submit your explanation

Question 8

Time: 00:00:00

In the pantheon of great thinkers, Karl Marx certainly ranks as one of the most influential, even if it has been said that no thinker has ever had his words more badly misrepresented, by supporters and detractors alike, than Karl Marx. After Marx, no social discipline was safe from an assault by Marxist thinkers. However, while the views and insights brought to bear by Marxists have helped to illuminate relationships in some disciplines, the Marxist worldview has been less successful when applied to certain human interactions.

For example, Marxist perspectives on global power relations have been assailed by many critics. Because Marx himself was especially concerned with economics, his followers have tended to elevate economic concerns, including the class struggle and control over the means of production, over all other areas. Thus, when analyzing the balance of power on a global level, key concepts such as nationalism, security, and the state are virtually ignored by Marxist scholars.

On a theoretical level, it may be useful to strip away these concepts to more closely examine certain other dynamics at work, but the Marxist view often fails to describe what actually happens in the real world. Consider the strong nationalism evident in Poland, even after generations of the one-party Communist rule.

Also, the Marxist devotion to capitalism leads to simplifications on the world stage. Marxist political scientists typically refer to the "world capitalist system" when analyzing interactions among nations, but this definition has less and less relevance when applied to the variety of economies at work in the world. Where do countries with transitional or developing economies such as China, Russia, and North Korea fit into this schema? Ultimately, a Marxist view of global interactions sacrifices a great many crucial concepts at the altar of one overarching economic perspective. Some critics have likened such a view to an analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that neglects to discuss the protagonist and his motivations.

As used in the passage, the phrase "world capitalist system" most likely refers to:

an effort by capitalist countries to attempt to dominate world markets

a fully integrated global economy

a homogeneity among the economies of the countries of the world

a system that fails to take into account developing or transitional economies

a Marxist critique of the global class struggle

Good Job!

Oops!