All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GRE Exam  >  GRE Questions  >  Most of the ways economists talk among themse... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk. 
  • a)
    Economical 
  • b)
    Scientific 
  • c)
    Plausible 
  • d)
    Improbable 
  • e)
    Reasonable
Correct answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound ________...
The word, ‘economical’ cannot be used in the context as indicated by the blank and hence, A is incorrect. B is also incorrect as it is unlikely that the talk of economists could sound scientific. Out of the remaining options, C and E are the only options that carry the same meaning and would impart the same sense to the sentence when placed in the blank. Therefore, C and E are the correct answers.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound ________...
Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound plausible enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.

- Economical:
The term "economical" refers to something that is efficient or cost-effective. While economists do strive for efficiency in their analysis and use economic models to maximize outcomes with limited resources, this term does not accurately describe the way economists talk among themselves.

- Scientific:
Economists often use scientific methods and approaches in their research and analysis. They apply statistical techniques, conduct experiments, and use mathematical models to understand economic phenomena. However, the way economists talk among themselves is not limited to scientific language or jargon. They often discuss economic concepts, theories, and policies in a more accessible manner that can be understood by non-economists as well.

- Plausible:
The term "plausible" means something that is believable or reasonable. This is an accurate description of how economists communicate with each other. They present their arguments, theories, and evidence in a logical and coherent manner, making their discussions plausible to a wide range of audiences. They provide explanations and justifications for their conclusions, making their ideas credible and reasonable.

- Improbable:
The term "improbable" means something that is unlikely or doubtful. While economists may sometimes use complex economic models and theories in their discussions, they also make efforts to communicate their ideas in a way that is understandable to a broader audience. They use real-world examples, analogies, and relatable language to make their arguments more accessible. Therefore, the way economists talk among themselves is not improbable.

- Reasonable:
The term "reasonable" means something that is sensible or logical. This is another accurate description of the way economists communicate. They present their ideas and arguments based on evidence, logic, and economic principles. They engage in critical thinking, evaluate different perspectives, and provide well-reasoned explanations for their conclusions. This allows economists to have meaningful discussions and debates among themselves, as well as with other individuals from diverse backgrounds.
Attention GRE Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GRE study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GRE.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GRE exam

Similar GRE Doubts

PASSAGE:Most economists in the United states seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good ornormal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price – fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion. Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market.But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.Q. The passage provides information that would answer which of the following questions about price-fixing? I.What are some of the ways in which prices can be fixed? II.For what products is price-fixing likely to be more profitable than the operation of the free market? III.Is price-fixing more common in socialist industrialized societies or in nonsocialist industrialized societies?

PASSAGE:Most economists in the United states seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good ornormal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price – fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion. Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market.But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.Q. The primary purpose of the passage is to

PASSAGE:Most economists in the United states seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good ornormal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price – fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion. Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market.But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.Q.It can be inferred from the author’s argument that a price fixed by the seller “seems pernicious” because

PASSAGE:Most economists in the United states seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good ornormal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price – fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion. Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market.But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.Q.According to the author, priced-fixing in nonsocialist countries is often.

PASSAGE:Most economists in the United states seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good ornormal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price – fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion. Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970’s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market.But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.Q.The author’s attitude toward “Most economists in the United States” can best be described as

Top Courses for GREView all

Top Courses for GRE

Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.a)Economicalb)Scientificc)Plausibled)Improbablee)ReasonableCorrect answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.a)Economicalb)Scientificc)Plausibled)Improbablee)ReasonableCorrect answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer? for GRE 2024 is part of GRE preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GRE exam syllabus. Information about Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.a)Economicalb)Scientificc)Plausibled)Improbablee)ReasonableCorrect answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GRE 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.a)Economicalb)Scientificc)Plausibled)Improbablee)ReasonableCorrect answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.a)Economicalb)Scientificc)Plausibled)Improbablee)ReasonableCorrect answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GRE. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GRE Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.a)Economicalb)Scientificc)Plausibled)Improbablee)ReasonableCorrect answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.a)Economicalb)Scientificc)Plausibled)Improbablee)ReasonableCorrect answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.a)Economicalb)Scientificc)Plausibled)Improbablee)ReasonableCorrect answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.a)Economicalb)Scientificc)Plausibled)Improbablee)ReasonableCorrect answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound _________ enough to poets, journalists, business people, and other thoughtful folk.a)Economicalb)Scientificc)Plausibled)Improbablee)ReasonableCorrect answer is option 'C,E'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GRE tests.
Explore Courses for GRE exam

Top Courses for GRE

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup