If translated into English, most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound plausible enough to poets, journalists, businesspeople, and other thoughtful though noneconomical folk. Like serious talk anywhere-among boat designers and baseball fans, say -the talk is hard to follow when one has not made a habit of listening to it for a while. The culture of the conversation makes the words arcane. But the people in the unfamiliar conversation are not Martians. Underneath it all (the economist's favorite phrase) conversational habits are similar. Economics uses mathematical models and statistical tests and market arguments, all of which look alien to the literary eye. But looked at closely they are not so alien. They may be seen as figures of speech- metaphors, analogies, and appeals to authority. Figures of speech are not mere frills. They think for us. Someone who thinks of a market as an “invisible hand” and the organization of work as a “production function” and his coefficients as being “significant,” as an economist does, is giving the language a lot of responsibility. It seems a good idea to look hard at his language. If the economic conversation were found to depend a lot on its verbal forms, this would not mean that economics would be not a science, or just a matter of opinion, or some sort of confidence game. Good poets, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about symbols; good historians, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about data. Good scientists also use language. What is more (though it remains to be shown) they use the cunning of language, without particularly meaning to. The language used is a social object, and using language is a social act. It requires cunning (or, if you prefer, consideration), attention to the other minds present when one speaks. The paying of attention to one's audience is called “rhetoric,” a word that I later exercise hard. One uses rhetoric, of course, to warn of a fire in a theatre or to arouse the xenophobia of the electorate. This sort of yelling is the vulgar meaning of the word, like the president's “heated rhetoric” in a press conference or the “mere rhetoric” to which our enemies stoop. Since the Greek flame was lit, though, the word has been used also in a broader and more amiable sense, to mean the study of all the ways of accomplishing things with language inciting a mob to lynch the accused, to be sure, but also persuading readers of a novel that its characters breathe, or bringing scholars to accept the better argument and reject the worse. The question is whether the scholar- who usually fancies himself an announcer of “results” or a stater of “conclusions” free of rhetoric -speaks rhetorically. Does he try to persuade? It would seem so. Language, I just said, is not a solitary accomplishment. The scholar doesn‟t speak into the void, or to himself. He speaks to a community of voices. He desires to be heeded, praised, published, imitated, honored, en-nobeled. These are the desires. The devices of language are the means. Rhetoric is the proportioning of means to desires in speech. Rhetoric is an economics of language, the study of how scarce means are allocated to the insatiable desires of people to be heard. It seems on the face of it, a reasonable hypothesis that economists are like other people in being talkers, who desire listeners that they go to the library or the laboratory as much as when they go to the office on the polls. The purpose here is to see if this is true, and to see if it is useful to study the rhetoric of economic scholarship. The subject is scholarship. It is not the economy, or the adequacy of economic theory as a description of the economy, or even mainly the economist‟s role in the economy. The subject is the conversation economists have among themselves, for purposes of persuading each other that the interest elasticity of demand for investment is zero or that the money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, though, the conclusions are of more than academic interest. The conversations of classicists or of astronomers rarely affect the lives of other people. Those of economists do so on a large scale. A well known joke describes a May Day parade through Red Square with the usual mass of soldiers, guided missiles, rocket launchers. At last come rank upon rank of people in gray business suits. A bystander asks, “Who are those?” “Aha!” comes the reply, “those are economists: you have no idea what damage they can do!” Their conversations, do it.
21. Based on your understanding of the passage, which of the following conclusions would you agree with:
Get further ahead with an Executive MBA! Join us on April 24 at 12 PM ET for the Executive Assessment webinar to learn more about the test and what schools are looking for during the application process. Register now!
Wtsapp me 9354076316.Buy 15 GB of GMAT complete study material which include video lectures ,pdf,manhattan gmat materials,class recordings,past exams,diagnostic exams,maths refresher,all essential collection for GMAT prep which i can send u through google drive..selling here for only 500Rs.Very helpful for preparation.I got very good gmat score from these materials only.It took whole lot of time and money to have this so genuinely selling this for 500 only
How accurate are GMAT practice tests??
This is one very common question I have come across from many of GMAT aspirants. Having trained many students for GMAT, I always advise my students to use official tests provided by mba.com, to know accurately where they stand and the level of their preparedness for the final test, of course, they are from the makers of the test directly.
GMATPrep tests provides the most accurate estimation of your real score with a margin of error of almost +/-30 points that is someone who scored 670 on GmatPrep may well get a 700 on test, or may also end up with a score of 640, as your score on any given day also depends on your mood, sleep quality, the questions on the test, or whether you have taken the mocks in the real test-taking environment, yeah! all these matters.
Apart from official tests if you are using other tests such as Kaplan, Manhattan, Veritas, Economist the difference in the scores can be even 80-100 points, I have observed this with many of my students, its due to the fact that apart from a few features the test-maker has shared, the adaptive algorithm of test is a closely-held secret.
For sure, other adaptive tests can be used to help in improving accuracy, pacing throughout the test, guessing strategy to be used that’s not getting stuck on the question instead, making a guess and move on, and very important, how to handle the test stress still being calm throughout.
Having said all, the student should put his sincere efforts on solid preparation to ace the GMAT test!
Please visit www.theprepminds.com