Question Description
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It is almost universally agreed that the persistence of extreme poverty in many parts of the world is a bad thing. It is less well-agreed, even among philosophers, what should be done about it and by who. An influential movement founded by the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should each try to do the best we can by donating our surplus income to charities that help those in greatest need. This ‘effective altruism’ movement has two components: i) encouraging individuals in the rich world to donate more; and ii) encouraging us to donate more rationally, to the organisations most efficient at translating those donations into gains in human well-being.The problem with the first component of effective altruism was that it focuses on the internal moral economy of the giver rather than on the real-world problems our giving is supposed to address. The second component of effective altruism might not seem to have that problem because it is explicitly concerned with maximising the amount of good that each unit of resources achieves. However, this concern is better understood as efficiency than as effectiveness. This might seem an innocuous distinction since efficiency is about how we ought to get things done, i.e. a way of being effective. However, there are significant consequences for practical reasoning in the kind of cases effective altruism is concerned with.If one takes the efficiency view promoted by the effective altruism movement then one assumes a fixed set of resources and the choice of which goal to aim for follows from a calculation of how to maximise the expected value those resources can generate; i.e. the means justifies the end. This should ensure that your donation will achieve the most good, which is to say that you have done the best possible job of giving. However, despite doing so well at the task effective altruism has set you, if you step back you will notice that very little has actually been achieved. The total amount of good we can achieve with our donations is limited to the partial alleviation of some of the symptoms of extreme poverty, symptoms that will recur so long as poverty persists. But effective altruism supplies no plan for the elimination of poverty itself.The underlying problem is that effective altruisms distinctive combination of political pessimism and consumer-hero hubris forecloses the consideration of promising possibilities for achieving far more good. Singer and other effective altruist philosophers believe that their most likely customers find institutional reform too complicated and political action too impersonal and hit and miss to be attractive. So instead they flatter us by promising that we can literally be life-saving heroes from the comfort of our chairs and using only the super-power of our rich-world wallets.But it just doesnt work. Singer and others have been making this argument for nearly 50 years, yet the level of private donations remain orders of magnitude below what would be required to eliminate global poverty, however efficiently allocated. Also, it needlessly squanders the most obvious and powerful tool we have: the political sphere and institutions of government that we invented to solve complicated and large collective action problems.Q.The author is likely to agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:a)Global poverty is a large-scale problem, and its elimination requires concerted efforts.b)Effective altruism advocates the allocation of the least amount of resources for a goal.c)Governmental institutions must be assigned responsibility and accountability for implementing solutions to alleviate global poverty.d)Effective altruism focuses predominantly on individual efforts.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 following questions:It is almost universally agreed that the persistence of extreme poverty in many parts of the world is a bad thing. It is less well-agreed, even among philosophers, what should be done about it and by who. An influential movement founded by the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should each try to do the best we can by donating our surplus income to charities that help those in greatest need. This ‘effective altruism’ movement has two components: i) encouraging individuals in the rich world to donate more; and ii) encouraging us to donate more rationally, to the organisations most efficient at translating those donations into gains in human well-being.The problem with the first component of effective altruism was that it focuses on the internal moral economy of the giver rather than on the real-world problems our giving is supposed to address. The second component of effective altruism might not seem to have that problem because it is explicitly concerned with maximising the amount of good that each unit of resources achieves. However, this concern is better understood as efficiency than as effectiveness. This might seem an innocuous distinction since efficiency is about how we ought to get things done, i.e. a way of being effective. However, there are significant consequences for practical reasoning in the kind of cases effective altruism is concerned with.If one takes the efficiency view promoted by the effective altruism movement then one assumes a fixed set of resources and the choice of which goal to aim for follows from a calculation of how to maximise the expected value those resources can generate; i.e. the means justifies the end. This should ensure that your donation will achieve the most good, which is to say that you have done the best possible job of giving. However, despite doing so well at the task effective altruism has set you, if you step back you will notice that very little has actually been achieved. The total amount of good we can achieve with our donations is limited to the partial alleviation of some of the symptoms of extreme poverty, symptoms that will recur so long as poverty persists. But effective altruism supplies no plan for the elimination of poverty itself.The underlying problem is that effective altruisms distinctive combination of political pessimism and consumer-hero hubris forecloses the consideration of promising possibilities for achieving far more good. Singer and other effective altruist philosophers believe that their most likely customers find institutional reform too complicated and political action too impersonal and hit and miss to be attractive. So instead they flatter us by promising that we can literally be life-saving heroes from the comfort of our chairs and using only the super-power of our rich-world wallets.But it just doesnt work. Singer and others have been making this argument for nearly 50 years, yet the level of private donations remain orders of magnitude below what would be required to eliminate global poverty, however efficiently allocated. Also, it needlessly squanders the most obvious and powerful tool we have: the political sphere and institutions of government that we invented to solve complicated and large collective action problems.Q.The author is likely to agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:a)Global poverty is a large-scale problem, and its elimination requires concerted efforts.b)Effective altruism advocates the allocation of the least amount of resources for a goal.c)Governmental institutions must be assigned responsibility and accountability for implementing solutions to alleviate global poverty.d)Effective altruism focuses predominantly on individual efforts.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 following questions:It is almost universally agreed that the persistence of extreme poverty in many parts of the world is a bad thing. It is less well-agreed, even among philosophers, what should be done about it and by who. An influential movement founded by the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should each try to do the best we can by donating our surplus income to charities that help those in greatest need. This ‘effective altruism’ movement has two components: i) encouraging individuals in the rich world to donate more; and ii) encouraging us to donate more rationally, to the organisations most efficient at translating those donations into gains in human well-being.The problem with the first component of effective altruism was that it focuses on the internal moral economy of the giver rather than on the real-world problems our giving is supposed to address. The second component of effective altruism might not seem to have that problem because it is explicitly concerned with maximising the amount of good that each unit of resources achieves. However, this concern is better understood as efficiency than as effectiveness. This might seem an innocuous distinction since efficiency is about how we ought to get things done, i.e. a way of being effective. However, there are significant consequences for practical reasoning in the kind of cases effective altruism is concerned with.If one takes the efficiency view promoted by the effective altruism movement then one assumes a fixed set of resources and the choice of which goal to aim for follows from a calculation of how to maximise the expected value those resources can generate; i.e. the means justifies the end. This should ensure that your donation will achieve the most good, which is to say that you have done the best possible job of giving. However, despite doing so well at the task effective altruism has set you, if you step back you will notice that very little has actually been achieved. The total amount of good we can achieve with our donations is limited to the partial alleviation of some of the symptoms of extreme poverty, symptoms that will recur so long as poverty persists. But effective altruism supplies no plan for the elimination of poverty itself.The underlying problem is that effective altruisms distinctive combination of political pessimism and consumer-hero hubris forecloses the consideration of promising possibilities for achieving far more good. Singer and other effective altruist philosophers believe that their most likely customers find institutional reform too complicated and political action too impersonal and hit and miss to be attractive. So instead they flatter us by promising that we can literally be life-saving heroes from the comfort of our chairs and using only the super-power of our rich-world wallets.But it just doesnt work. Singer and others have been making this argument for nearly 50 years, yet the level of private donations remain orders of magnitude below what would be required to eliminate global poverty, however efficiently allocated. Also, it needlessly squanders the most obvious and powerful tool we have: the political sphere and institutions of government that we invented to solve complicated and large collective action problems.Q.The author is likely to agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:a)Global poverty is a large-scale problem, and its elimination requires concerted efforts.b)Effective altruism advocates the allocation of the least amount of resources for a goal.c)Governmental institutions must be assigned responsibility and accountability for implementing solutions to alleviate global poverty.d)Effective altruism focuses predominantly on individual efforts.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It is almost universally agreed that the persistence of extreme poverty in many parts of the world is a bad thing. It is less well-agreed, even among philosophers, what should be done about it and by who. An influential movement founded by the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should each try to do the best we can by donating our surplus income to charities that help those in greatest need. This ‘effective altruism’ movement has two components: i) encouraging individuals in the rich world to donate more; and ii) encouraging us to donate more rationally, to the organisations most efficient at translating those donations into gains in human well-being.The problem with the first component of effective altruism was that it focuses on the internal moral economy of the giver rather than on the real-world problems our giving is supposed to address. The second component of effective altruism might not seem to have that problem because it is explicitly concerned with maximising the amount of good that each unit of resources achieves. However, this concern is better understood as efficiency than as effectiveness. This might seem an innocuous distinction since efficiency is about how we ought to get things done, i.e. a way of being effective. However, there are significant consequences for practical reasoning in the kind of cases effective altruism is concerned with.If one takes the efficiency view promoted by the effective altruism movement then one assumes a fixed set of resources and the choice of which goal to aim for follows from a calculation of how to maximise the expected value those resources can generate; i.e. the means justifies the end. This should ensure that your donation will achieve the most good, which is to say that you have done the best possible job of giving. However, despite doing so well at the task effective altruism has set you, if you step back you will notice that very little has actually been achieved. The total amount of good we can achieve with our donations is limited to the partial alleviation of some of the symptoms of extreme poverty, symptoms that will recur so long as poverty persists. But effective altruism supplies no plan for the elimination of poverty itself.The underlying problem is that effective altruisms distinctive combination of political pessimism and consumer-hero hubris forecloses the consideration of promising possibilities for achieving far more good. Singer and other effective altruist philosophers believe that their most likely customers find institutional reform too complicated and political action too impersonal and hit and miss to be attractive. So instead they flatter us by promising that we can literally be life-saving heroes from the comfort of our chairs and using only the super-power of our rich-world wallets.But it just doesnt work. Singer and others have been making this argument for nearly 50 years, yet the level of private donations remain orders of magnitude below what would be required to eliminate global poverty, however efficiently allocated. Also, it needlessly squanders the most obvious and powerful tool we have: the political sphere and institutions of government that we invented to solve complicated and large collective action problems.Q.The author is likely to agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:a)Global poverty is a large-scale problem, and its elimination requires concerted efforts.b)Effective altruism advocates the allocation of the least amount of resources for a goal.c)Governmental institutions must be assigned responsibility and accountability for implementing solutions to alleviate global poverty.d)Effective altruism focuses predominantly on individual efforts.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 following questions:It is almost universally agreed that the persistence of extreme poverty in many parts of the world is a bad thing. It is less well-agreed, even among philosophers, what should be done about it and by who. An influential movement founded by the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should each try to do the best we can by donating our surplus income to charities that help those in greatest need. This ‘effective altruism’ movement has two components: i) encouraging individuals in the rich world to donate more; and ii) encouraging us to donate more rationally, to the organisations most efficient at translating those donations into gains in human well-being.The problem with the first component of effective altruism was that it focuses on the internal moral economy of the giver rather than on the real-world problems our giving is supposed to address. The second component of effective altruism might not seem to have that problem because it is explicitly concerned with maximising the amount of good that each unit of resources achieves. However, this concern is better understood as efficiency than as effectiveness. This might seem an innocuous distinction since efficiency is about how we ought to get things done, i.e. a way of being effective. However, there are significant consequences for practical reasoning in the kind of cases effective altruism is concerned with.If one takes the efficiency view promoted by the effective altruism movement then one assumes a fixed set of resources and the choice of which goal to aim for follows from a calculation of how to maximise the expected value those resources can generate; i.e. the means justifies the end. This should ensure that your donation will achieve the most good, which is to say that you have done the best possible job of giving. However, despite doing so well at the task effective altruism has set you, if you step back you will notice that very little has actually been achieved. The total amount of good we can achieve with our donations is limited to the partial alleviation of some of the symptoms of extreme poverty, symptoms that will recur so long as poverty persists. But effective altruism supplies no plan for the elimination of poverty itself.The underlying problem is that effective altruisms distinctive combination of political pessimism and consumer-hero hubris forecloses the consideration of promising possibilities for achieving far more good. Singer and other effective altruist philosophers believe that their most likely customers find institutional reform too complicated and political action too impersonal and hit and miss to be attractive. So instead they flatter us by promising that we can literally be life-saving heroes from the comfort of our chairs and using only the super-power of our rich-world wallets.But it just doesnt work. Singer and others have been making this argument for nearly 50 years, yet the level of private donations remain orders of magnitude below what would be required to eliminate global poverty, however efficiently allocated. Also, it needlessly squanders the most obvious and powerful tool we have: the political sphere and institutions of government that we invented to solve complicated and large collective action problems.Q.The author is likely to agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:a)Global poverty is a large-scale problem, and its elimination requires concerted efforts.b)Effective altruism advocates the allocation of the least amount of resources for a goal.c)Governmental institutions must be assigned responsibility and accountability for implementing solutions to alleviate global poverty.d)Effective altruism focuses predominantly on individual efforts.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It is almost universally agreed that the persistence of extreme poverty in many parts of the world is a bad thing. It is less well-agreed, even among philosophers, what should be done about it and by who. An influential movement founded by the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should each try to do the best we can by donating our surplus income to charities that help those in greatest need. This ‘effective altruism’ movement has two components: i) encouraging individuals in the rich world to donate more; and ii) encouraging us to donate more rationally, to the organisations most efficient at translating those donations into gains in human well-being.The problem with the first component of effective altruism was that it focuses on the internal moral economy of the giver rather than on the real-world problems our giving is supposed to address. The second component of effective altruism might not seem to have that problem because it is explicitly concerned with maximising the amount of good that each unit of resources achieves. However, this concern is better understood as efficiency than as effectiveness. This might seem an innocuous distinction since efficiency is about how we ought to get things done, i.e. a way of being effective. However, there are significant consequences for practical reasoning in the kind of cases effective altruism is concerned with.If one takes the efficiency view promoted by the effective altruism movement then one assumes a fixed set of resources and the choice of which goal to aim for follows from a calculation of how to maximise the expected value those resources can generate; i.e. the means justifies the end. This should ensure that your donation will achieve the most good, which is to say that you have done the best possible job of giving. However, despite doing so well at the task effective altruism has set you, if you step back you will notice that very little has actually been achieved. The total amount of good we can achieve with our donations is limited to the partial alleviation of some of the symptoms of extreme poverty, symptoms that will recur so long as poverty persists. But effective altruism supplies no plan for the elimination of poverty itself.The underlying problem is that effective altruisms distinctive combination of political pessimism and consumer-hero hubris forecloses the consideration of promising possibilities for achieving far more good. Singer and other effective altruist philosophers believe that their most likely customers find institutional reform too complicated and political action too impersonal and hit and miss to be attractive. So instead they flatter us by promising that we can literally be life-saving heroes from the comfort of our chairs and using only the super-power of our rich-world wallets.But it just doesnt work. Singer and others have been making this argument for nearly 50 years, yet the level of private donations remain orders of magnitude below what would be required to eliminate global poverty, however efficiently allocated. Also, it needlessly squanders the most obvious and powerful tool we have: the political sphere and institutions of government that we invented to solve complicated and large collective action problems.Q.The author is likely to agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:a)Global poverty is a large-scale problem, and its elimination requires concerted efforts.b)Effective altruism advocates the allocation of the least amount of resources for a goal.c)Governmental institutions must be assigned responsibility and accountability for implementing solutions to alleviate global poverty.d)Effective altruism focuses predominantly on individual efforts.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It is almost universally agreed that the persistence of extreme poverty in many parts of the world is a bad thing. It is less well-agreed, even among philosophers, what should be done about it and by who. An influential movement founded by the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should each try to do the best we can by donating our surplus income to charities that help those in greatest need. This ‘effective altruism’ movement has two components: i) encouraging individuals in the rich world to donate more; and ii) encouraging us to donate more rationally, to the organisations most efficient at translating those donations into gains in human well-being.The problem with the first component of effective altruism was that it focuses on the internal moral economy of the giver rather than on the real-world problems our giving is supposed to address. The second component of effective altruism might not seem to have that problem because it is explicitly concerned with maximising the amount of good that each unit of resources achieves. However, this concern is better understood as efficiency than as effectiveness. This might seem an innocuous distinction since efficiency is about how we ought to get things done, i.e. a way of being effective. However, there are significant consequences for practical reasoning in the kind of cases effective altruism is concerned with.If one takes the efficiency view promoted by the effective altruism movement then one assumes a fixed set of resources and the choice of which goal to aim for follows from a calculation of how to maximise the expected value those resources can generate; i.e. the means justifies the end. This should ensure that your donation will achieve the most good, which is to say that you have done the best possible job of giving. However, despite doing so well at the task effective altruism has set you, if you step back you will notice that very little has actually been achieved. The total amount of good we can achieve with our donations is limited to the partial alleviation of some of the symptoms of extreme poverty, symptoms that will recur so long as poverty persists. But effective altruism supplies no plan for the elimination of poverty itself.The underlying problem is that effective altruisms distinctive combination of political pessimism and consumer-hero hubris forecloses the consideration of promising possibilities for achieving far more good. Singer and other effective altruist philosophers believe that their most likely customers find institutional reform too complicated and political action too impersonal and hit and miss to be attractive. So instead they flatter us by promising that we can literally be life-saving heroes from the comfort of our chairs and using only the super-power of our rich-world wallets.But it just doesnt work. Singer and others have been making this argument for nearly 50 years, yet the level of private donations remain orders of magnitude below what would be required to eliminate global poverty, however efficiently allocated. Also, it needlessly squanders the most obvious and powerful tool we have: the political sphere and institutions of government that we invented to solve complicated and large collective action problems.Q.The author is likely to agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:a)Global poverty is a large-scale problem, and its elimination requires concerted efforts.b)Effective altruism advocates the allocation of the least amount of resources for a goal.c)Governmental institutions must be assigned responsibility and accountability for implementing solutions to alleviate global poverty.d)Effective altruism focuses predominantly on individual efforts.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It is almost universally agreed that the persistence of extreme poverty in many parts of the world is a bad thing. It is less well-agreed, even among philosophers, what should be done about it and by who. An influential movement founded by the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should each try to do the best we can by donating our surplus income to charities that help those in greatest need. This ‘effective altruism’ movement has two components: i) encouraging individuals in the rich world to donate more; and ii) encouraging us to donate more rationally, to the organisations most efficient at translating those donations into gains in human well-being.The problem with the first component of effective altruism was that it focuses on the internal moral economy of the giver rather than on the real-world problems our giving is supposed to address. The second component of effective altruism might not seem to have that problem because it is explicitly concerned with maximising the amount of good that each unit of resources achieves. However, this concern is better understood as efficiency than as effectiveness. This might seem an innocuous distinction since efficiency is about how we ought to get things done, i.e. a way of being effective. However, there are significant consequences for practical reasoning in the kind of cases effective altruism is concerned with.If one takes the efficiency view promoted by the effective altruism movement then one assumes a fixed set of resources and the choice of which goal to aim for follows from a calculation of how to maximise the expected value those resources can generate; i.e. the means justifies the end. This should ensure that your donation will achieve the most good, which is to say that you have done the best possible job of giving. However, despite doing so well at the task effective altruism has set you, if you step back you will notice that very little has actually been achieved. The total amount of good we can achieve with our donations is limited to the partial alleviation of some of the symptoms of extreme poverty, symptoms that will recur so long as poverty persists. But effective altruism supplies no plan for the elimination of poverty itself.The underlying problem is that effective altruisms distinctive combination of political pessimism and consumer-hero hubris forecloses the consideration of promising possibilities for achieving far more good. Singer and other effective altruist philosophers believe that their most likely customers find institutional reform too complicated and political action too impersonal and hit and miss to be attractive. So instead they flatter us by promising that we can literally be life-saving heroes from the comfort of our chairs and using only the super-power of our rich-world wallets.But it just doesnt work. Singer and others have been making this argument for nearly 50 years, yet the level of private donations remain orders of magnitude below what would be required to eliminate global poverty, however efficiently allocated. Also, it needlessly squanders the most obvious and powerful tool we have: the political sphere and institutions of government that we invented to solve complicated and large collective action problems.Q.The author is likely to agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:a)Global poverty is a large-scale problem, and its elimination requires concerted efforts.b)Effective altruism advocates the allocation of the least amount of resources for a goal.c)Governmental institutions must be assigned responsibility and accountability for implementing solutions to alleviate global poverty.d)Effective altruism focuses predominantly on individual efforts.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It is almost universally agreed that the persistence of extreme poverty in many parts of the world is a bad thing. It is less well-agreed, even among philosophers, what should be done about it and by who. An influential movement founded by the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should each try to do the best we can by donating our surplus income to charities that help those in greatest need. This ‘effective altruism’ movement has two components: i) encouraging individuals in the rich world to donate more; and ii) encouraging us to donate more rationally, to the organisations most efficient at translating those donations into gains in human well-being.The problem with the first component of effective altruism was that it focuses on the internal moral economy of the giver rather than on the real-world problems our giving is supposed to address. The second component of effective altruism might not seem to have that problem because it is explicitly concerned with maximising the amount of good that each unit of resources achieves. However, this concern is better understood as efficiency than as effectiveness. This might seem an innocuous distinction since efficiency is about how we ought to get things done, i.e. a way of being effective. However, there are significant consequences for practical reasoning in the kind of cases effective altruism is concerned with.If one takes the efficiency view promoted by the effective altruism movement then one assumes a fixed set of resources and the choice of which goal to aim for follows from a calculation of how to maximise the expected value those resources can generate; i.e. the means justifies the end. This should ensure that your donation will achieve the most good, which is to say that you have done the best possible job of giving. However, despite doing so well at the task effective altruism has set you, if you step back you will notice that very little has actually been achieved. The total amount of good we can achieve with our donations is limited to the partial alleviation of some of the symptoms of extreme poverty, symptoms that will recur so long as poverty persists. But effective altruism supplies no plan for the elimination of poverty itself.The underlying problem is that effective altruisms distinctive combination of political pessimism and consumer-hero hubris forecloses the consideration of promising possibilities for achieving far more good. Singer and other effective altruist philosophers believe that their most likely customers find institutional reform too complicated and political action too impersonal and hit and miss to be attractive. So instead they flatter us by promising that we can literally be life-saving heroes from the comfort of our chairs and using only the super-power of our rich-world wallets.But it just doesnt work. Singer and others have been making this argument for nearly 50 years, yet the level of private donations remain orders of magnitude below what would be required to eliminate global poverty, however efficiently allocated. Also, it needlessly squanders the most obvious and powerful tool we have: the political sphere and institutions of government that we invented to solve complicated and large collective action problems.Q.The author is likely to agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:a)Global poverty is a large-scale problem, and its elimination requires concerted efforts.b)Effective altruism advocates the allocation of the least amount of resources for a goal.c)Governmental institutions must be assigned responsibility and accountability for implementing solutions to alleviate global poverty.d)Effective altruism focuses predominantly on individual efforts.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.