Skip to main contentSkip to solution

I've been following the economic crisis for more than two years now. I began working on the subject as part of the background to a novel, and soon realized that I had stumbled across the most interesting story I've ever found. While I was beginning to work on it, the British bank Northern Rock blew up, and it became clear that, as I wrote at the time, "If our laws are not extended to control the new kinds of super-powerful, super-complex, and potentially super- risky investment vehicles, they will one day cause a financial disaster of global-systemic proportions." I was both right and too late, because all the groundwork for the crisis had already been done though the sluggishness of the world's governments, in not preparing for the great unraveling of autumn 2008, was then and still is stupefying. But this is the first reason why I wrote this book: because what's happened is extraordinarily interesting. It is an absolutely amazing story, full of human interest and drama, one whose byways of mathematics, economics, and psychology are both central to the story of the last decades and mysteriously unknown to the general public. We have heard a lot about "the two cultures" of science and the arts we heard a particularly large amount

about it in 2009, because it was the fiftieth anniversary of the speech during which C. P. Snow first used the phrase. But I'm not sure the idea of a huge gap between science and the arts is as true as it was half a century ago it's certainly true, for instance, that a general reader who wants to pick up an education in the fundamentals of science will find it easier than ever before. It seems to me that there is a much bigger gap between the world of finance and that of the general public and that there is a need to narrow that gap, if the financial industry is not to be a kind of priesthood, administering to its own mysteries and feared and resented by the rest of us. Many bright, literate people have no idea about all sorts of economic basics, of a type that financial insiders take as elementary facts of how the world works. I am an outsider to finance and economics, and my hope is that I can talk across that gulf.

My need to understand is the same as yours, whoever you are. That's one of the strangest ironies of this story: after decades in which the ideology of the Western world was personally and economically individualistic, we've suddenly been hit by a crisis which shows in the starkest terms that whether we like it or not and there are large parts of it that you would have to be crazy to like we're all in this together. The aftermath of the crisis is going to dominate the economics and politics of our societies for at least a decade to come and perhaps longer.

Which one of the following best captures the main argument of the last paragraph of the passage?

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 3

The author talks about irony - something surprising or opposite of what you'd expect. He says after decades of individualism, the crisis shows "we're all in this together."

From passage: "That's one of the strangest ironies of this story: after decades in which the ideology of the Western world was personally and economically individualistic, we've suddenly been hit by a crisis which shows in the starkest terms that whether we like it or not... we're all in this together."

Thought process: Decades of individualism -> Crisis hits -> Shows we need to work together -> Individualism doesn't work anymore


šŸ”“ Option 1 -> scope-error -> focuses on denying crisis exists, but passage isn't about people denying the crisis - it's about what the crisis teaches us

šŸ”“ Option 2 -> opposite-meaning -> says crisis will strengthen individualism, but passage says crisis shows individualism doesn't work - completely backward

🟢 Option 3 -> correct -> captures the main point that individualistic thinking must be set aside because crisis shows "we're all in this together"

šŸ”“ Option 4 -> scope-error -> talks about new ideologies emerging, but passage only says individualism doesn't work - doesn't predict what will replace it

Key insight: The author isn't predicting the future or talking about crisis denial. He's pointing out that individualism (the old way) doesn't work for this crisis because everyone is affected together.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question