GMAT Reading Comprehension - The Passage into U.S. Law on October 3, 2008, of the $700 Billion

Sayantani Barman logo

bySayantani Barman Experta en el extranjero

Reading Passage Question

The passage into U.S. law on October 3, 2008, of the $700 billion financial-sector rescue plan is the latest in a long history of U.S. government bailouts, dating back to the Panic of 1792. It also marked the fourth time in 2008 that the government interceded to prevent the ruin of a private enterprise or the entire financial sector. Many experts assert that the perceived catastrophic effect of financial sector ruin justifies this bailout. However, this assertion overstates the long-term financial benefits of such a policy.

Such an assertion ignores fiscal and market realities. Federal politicians have granted themselves the ability to prevent companies from failing on the subjective, predictive assertion that to do otherwise would lead to economic turmoil. It is precisely because of such bailouts (and other government-sponsored economic interventions) that the United States has experienced such economic turmoil in the first place. The champions of interventionism fail to realize that their program implies the establishment of full government supremacy in all economic matters and ultimately brings about a state of affairs that threatens a sustainable free-market economy. If it is in the jurisdiction of the government to decide whether conditions of the economy justify government intervention, no sphere of operation is left to the market. Interventionist theory thus relies on a somewhat distorted picture of reality.

Interventionist doctrine implies that the market is free as long as it performs precisely as the government intends. Thus, the theory and the practice of interventionism ultimately tend to abandon the principles that originally distinguished the free enterprise system from systems largely based on central planning, such as the former Soviet economy. In a truly free market, financial sector entities should be allowed to succeed or fail based on individual merit. The current planned use of public monies to save companies with questionable balance sheets, ethics, and business practices, may work in the short run, but the ultimate long-term result will be one of financial insolvency.

‘The passage into U.S. law on October 3, 2008, of the $700 billion’ is a GMAT reading comprehension passage with answers. Candidates need a strong knowledge of English GMAT reading comprehension.

This GMAT Reading Comprehension consists of 7 comprehension questions.

The GMAT Reading Comprehension questions are designed for the purpose of testing candidates’ abilities in understanding, analyzing, and applying information or concepts. Candidates can actively prepare with the help of GMAT Reading Comprehension Practice Questions.

Questions and Solutions

  1. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with
  1. substantiating a claim about a historical event
  2. reconciling two opposing ideas about a recent policy decision
  3. disputing evidence the government uses to support legislation
  4. analyzing two approaches to private-sector bailouts and evaluating their methodologies
  5. criticizing a particular decision and the approach to fiscal policy it represents

Answer: E
Explanation:
This assumption overstates the long-term financial benefits of such a program, according to the first passage, which discussed the bailouts in 2008 and 1792. The second passage discussed how these choices alter free market theory and have detrimental effects on economics. The authors concluded by saying that it is advantageous in the short term but detrimental over the long term.

  1. It can be inferred from the passage that the author of the passage considers “central planning” (see underlined text) to be
  1. already included in most conceptions of interventionism
  2. based on free-market fiscal policy
  3. an alternative to interventionism
  4. a historical mistake not to be repeated
  5. a new approach to economic problems

Answer: D
Explanation:
Option A comes the closest to being accurate, but option D is preferable because it is stated specifically in the section where central planning is covered (excerpt above). The bolded portion states that there shouldn't be any central planning. It occurred in the former Soviet economy, as stated in the preceding phrase. Because of the immediately next bold section suggestion that is made. It is clear that the author does not find this to be particularly amusing and believes it to be a mistake.

  1. The author would most likely agree with which of the following statements?
  1. Interventionism gives the government greater power than is generally acknowledged.
  2. An economy that involves frequent use of private-sector bailouts can still be described as a free market.
  3. The government was justified when it bailed out the states in order to ease the Panic of 1792.
  4. Companies with questionable balance sheets will, without government assistance, almost always fail.
  5. Government supremacy is preferable to a state of affairs where the failure of one firm may lead to the failure of many other firms.

Answer: A
Explanation:
It is said in the last line of the second paragraph that interventionism proponents are unaware that their policy. It entails the installation of full government supremacy in all economic matters and ultimately results in a situation that endangers a long-term free-market economy. It follows that choice A is the best one.

Suggested GMAT Reading Comprehension Questions

Fees Structure

CategoryState
General15556

In case of any inaccuracy, Notify Us! 

Comments


No Comments To Show