Question Description
Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The authors view on the principle of just deserts differs from that of Mankiw in which of the following ways?a)While Mankiw does not prescribe a criterion to measure the impact of an individuals contribution, the author advocates the need to consider the contributions role in societal progress.b)The author focuses on contributions that improve the social status of the person, whereas Mankiw focuses on the contribution to the production of goods and services.c)The author posits that only those who contribute to social advancement should be rewarded, whereas Mankiw does not distinguish the contributions based on their social impact.d)While Mankiw measures contributions based on market value-added, the author focuses on the ability of the contributions to accrue benefits to society.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The authors view on the principle of just deserts differs from that of Mankiw in which of the following ways?a)While Mankiw does not prescribe a criterion to measure the impact of an individuals contribution, the author advocates the need to consider the contributions role in societal progress.b)The author focuses on contributions that improve the social status of the person, whereas Mankiw focuses on the contribution to the production of goods and services.c)The author posits that only those who contribute to social advancement should be rewarded, whereas Mankiw does not distinguish the contributions based on their social impact.d)While Mankiw measures contributions based on market value-added, the author focuses on the ability of the contributions to accrue benefits to society.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The authors view on the principle of just deserts differs from that of Mankiw in which of the following ways?a)While Mankiw does not prescribe a criterion to measure the impact of an individuals contribution, the author advocates the need to consider the contributions role in societal progress.b)The author focuses on contributions that improve the social status of the person, whereas Mankiw focuses on the contribution to the production of goods and services.c)The author posits that only those who contribute to social advancement should be rewarded, whereas Mankiw does not distinguish the contributions based on their social impact.d)While Mankiw measures contributions based on market value-added, the author focuses on the ability of the contributions to accrue benefits to society.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The authors view on the principle of just deserts differs from that of Mankiw in which of the following ways?a)While Mankiw does not prescribe a criterion to measure the impact of an individuals contribution, the author advocates the need to consider the contributions role in societal progress.b)The author focuses on contributions that improve the social status of the person, whereas Mankiw focuses on the contribution to the production of goods and services.c)The author posits that only those who contribute to social advancement should be rewarded, whereas Mankiw does not distinguish the contributions based on their social impact.d)While Mankiw measures contributions based on market value-added, the author focuses on the ability of the contributions to accrue benefits to society.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The authors view on the principle of just deserts differs from that of Mankiw in which of the following ways?a)While Mankiw does not prescribe a criterion to measure the impact of an individuals contribution, the author advocates the need to consider the contributions role in societal progress.b)The author focuses on contributions that improve the social status of the person, whereas Mankiw focuses on the contribution to the production of goods and services.c)The author posits that only those who contribute to social advancement should be rewarded, whereas Mankiw does not distinguish the contributions based on their social impact.d)While Mankiw measures contributions based on market value-added, the author focuses on the ability of the contributions to accrue benefits to society.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The authors view on the principle of just deserts differs from that of Mankiw in which of the following ways?a)While Mankiw does not prescribe a criterion to measure the impact of an individuals contribution, the author advocates the need to consider the contributions role in societal progress.b)The author focuses on contributions that improve the social status of the person, whereas Mankiw focuses on the contribution to the production of goods and services.c)The author posits that only those who contribute to social advancement should be rewarded, whereas Mankiw does not distinguish the contributions based on their social impact.d)While Mankiw measures contributions based on market value-added, the author focuses on the ability of the contributions to accrue benefits to society.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The authors view on the principle of just deserts differs from that of Mankiw in which of the following ways?a)While Mankiw does not prescribe a criterion to measure the impact of an individuals contribution, the author advocates the need to consider the contributions role in societal progress.b)The author focuses on contributions that improve the social status of the person, whereas Mankiw focuses on the contribution to the production of goods and services.c)The author posits that only those who contribute to social advancement should be rewarded, whereas Mankiw does not distinguish the contributions based on their social impact.d)While Mankiw measures contributions based on market value-added, the author focuses on the ability of the contributions to accrue benefits to society.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The authors view on the principle of just deserts differs from that of Mankiw in which of the following ways?a)While Mankiw does not prescribe a criterion to measure the impact of an individuals contribution, the author advocates the need to consider the contributions role in societal progress.b)The author focuses on contributions that improve the social status of the person, whereas Mankiw focuses on the contribution to the production of goods and services.c)The author posits that only those who contribute to social advancement should be rewarded, whereas Mankiw does not distinguish the contributions based on their social impact.d)While Mankiw measures contributions based on market value-added, the author focuses on the ability of the contributions to accrue benefits to society.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:Our meritocracy looks to markets to measure merit. Prices—including, crucially, wages—establish what things are worth. Greg Mankiw, who chaired George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, captures the ideal in his “principle of just deserts.” Meritocracy holds that “a person who contributes more to society deserves a higher income that reflects those greater contributions.” Moreover, meritocracy measures each person’s contribution as the market value that she adds “to society’s production of goods and services.”But in reality, meritocratic hierarchies now distort market valuations, especially wages. Elites remake work in their own image, to privilege education and skills that only they can afford to acquire. Finance illustrates the pattern. In the mid 20th century, when the Economist called banking “the world’s most respectable dying industry,” those in the field were neither better educated nor better paid than others. Since then, super-educated elites have developed technologies—financial instruments, digital tools and legal regimes—that dramatically favour their own skills. Today, no sector is more closely associated with high wages. But the innovation is not a true advance, and the new style of finance does not make a greater social contribution than the old. The transaction costs of financial intermediation have not declined, and overall financial risk is neither reduced nor better shared.Similar patterns pervade the wider economy. Elites remake work to favour their peculiar skills and then use the enormous incomes that ensue to buy educations for their children that the rest cannot match. Far from correcting itself, meritocratic inequality triggers a feedback loop that undermines meritocracy’s core claims. Merit is an ideology built to launder offensive hierarchies.But,todays distribution of rewards and opportunities is notso repugnant that we need to junk the idea of merit.The meritocratic idea was forged in the revolt against the old society that fixed people’s position at birth, most notably in the French and American Revolutions of the 18th century and the English liberal revolution of the 19th. But things didn’t stop there. Prominent thinkers of the time like Du Bois and Luther King,all rested their arguments on the idea that people should be judged on the basis of their own abilities.I would agree with a reworded version of Mankiw’s principle: someone who contributes more to prosperity deserves a higher income that reflects their greater contribution.There is more to meritocracy than money-making.The meritocratic idea tries to address two of the great problems at the heart of modernity: how do we reconcile the moral equality of individuals with social differentiation? And how do we secure the economic growth that pays for the things we have come to expect, such as social welfare?Meritocracy answers the first question by providing a combination of equality of opportunity and competition. Universal education gives everybody a basic shot at succeeding. Competition allows people to discover their unique talents. And if competition has downsides, they are nothing compared with the risks of allowing talents to go undiscovered.The evidence that meritocracy promotes economic efficiency is overwhelming: meritocratic countries such as Singapore grow more robustly than non-meritocratic ones such as Greece; public companies that recruit people on merit are more successful than family companies that rely on nepotism.The solution to the inequalities produced by meritocracy’s success is to tax the winners rather than to bind Prometheus.Q. The authors view on the principle of just deserts differs from that of Mankiw in which of the following ways?a)While Mankiw does not prescribe a criterion to measure the impact of an individuals contribution, the author advocates the need to consider the contributions role in societal progress.b)The author focuses on contributions that improve the social status of the person, whereas Mankiw focuses on the contribution to the production of goods and services.c)The author posits that only those who contribute to social advancement should be rewarded, whereas Mankiw does not distinguish the contributions based on their social impact.d)While Mankiw measures contributions based on market value-added, the author focuses on the ability of the contributions to accrue benefits to society.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.