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.

All of the following, if true, could be seen as supporting the arguments in the passage, EXCEPT:

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 4

From passage: "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...we're all in this together."

The author clearly connects the individualistic ideology -> economic crisis. This suggests ideologies can cause problems, not that they're separate from system failures.


Elimination Process:

Students often get confused between options 2 and 4 here. 🟢 Option 1 -> supported -> passage says "gap between finance and general public" + "Many bright, literate people have no idea about economic basics" = financial matters are arcane/difficult

🟢 Option 2 -> supported -> author links individualistic ideology to crisis, implying different ideologies might prevent crises

🟢 Option 3 -> supported -> passage mentions "byways of mathematics, economics, and psychology" + "global-systemic proportions" = matches international relations, security, psychology

šŸ”“ Option 4 -> contradicts passage -> author directly blames individualistic ideology for contributing to economic crisis. This option says ideologies and system failures are unrelated, but passage shows they ARE connected


The key insight: Author argues ideology caused the crisis. Option 4 says ideology and system failure are unrelated. This directly contradicts the passage's main argument about how individualistic thinking led to our current mess.

Option 4 is correct because it's the only one that goes against what the passage argues.

Keyboard Shortcuts

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