Loading question...
You are in free guest mode. Timed Practice Revision List Attempt History Progress Tracking Create a free account to unlock these tools
Prev Next
Practice Reading: Multiple Choice, Multiple Answers ID: #35386 Modern economies
Instructions ›
Read the text and answer the question by selecting all the correct responses. You will need to select more than one response.
Modern economies do not differentiate between renewable and non-renewable materials, as its method is to measures everything by means of a money price. Thus, taking various alternatives fuels, like coal, oil, wood or water power: the only difference between them recognised by modern economics is relative cost per equivalent unit. The cheapest is automatically the one to be preferred, as to do otherwise would be irrational and 'uneconomic'. From a Buddhist point of view of course this will not do, the essential difference between non-renewable fuels like coal and oil on the one hand and renewable fuels like wood and water power on the other cannot be simply overlooked. Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indispensable, and then only with the greatest care and the highest concern for conservation. To use them carelessly or extravagantly is an act of violence, and while complete non-violence may not be possible on earth, it is nonetheless the duty of man to aim at deal of non-violence in all he does.

Which of the following statements may be assumed to be FALSE from the information in the passage?

* Click on the correct answers

Result:

AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Option 1: "The writer finds the attitude of modern economists towards natural resources to be uneconomic."

Explanation: The text indicates that modern economies measure resources solely by money price, which the writer criticizes as irrational and 'uneconomic.' This aligns with the writer's view that the approach of modern economists is flawed, thus supporting the assumption that this statement is false.

Option 2: "To use oil on non-essentials is contrary to the Buddhist economic philosophy."

Explanation: The text suggests that non-renewable goods, like oil, should only be used when indispensable, implying that using oil for non-essential purposes contradicts Buddhist philosophy. Therefore, this statement is true, not false.

Option 3: "To fell a tree is an act of violence not permitted by Buddhist economists."

Explanation: The text implies that using non-renewable resources carelessly is an act of violence. While it does not explicitly mention trees, the broader context of conservation suggests that felling a tree without necessity could be viewed similarly. Thus, this statement can be assumed to be false.

Option 4: "Buddhist economists are indifferent to the cost of fuels."

Explanation: The text emphasizes the importance of conservation and the ethical use of resources from a Buddhist perspective, suggesting that cost is not the primary concern. This indicates that Buddhist economists are not indifferent to the cost but prioritize ethical considerations, making this statement false.

Option 5: "Non-renewable goods must not be used."

Explanation: The text states that non-renewable goods should only be used if indispensable, which means they can be used under certain conditions. Therefore, this statement is true, not false.

The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.

Sign in to read the full explanation

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.
Be the first! No community answers here yet. Submit yours and help others learn.
How difficult was this question?
Others found: 100% Easy · 0% Medium · 0% Hard
Saving...