All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  Passage A is from a source published in 2004 ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.
Passage A
Millions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.
The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.
Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.
As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.
Passage B
Most multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.
(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.
Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.
By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.
Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?
  • a)
    “The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”
  • b)
    “An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”
  • c)
    “The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”
  • d)
    “How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”
  • e)
    “A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a s...
To determine the most appropriate titles for passages A and B, we need to understand the main themes and focus of each passage:
Passage A:
  • This passage discusses how virtual economies in multiplayer online games have developed to the point where virtual goods and currency are traded for real money. It highlights how virtual currency can be traded for real cash and how players are essentially creating wealth through their in-game activities.
Passage B:
  • This passage addresses the legal and tax implications of virtual items and currencies. It examines whether virtual items should be taxed and how virtual economies might be treated under current tax law. It discusses the principles of tax policy and doctrine related to virtual goods and currencies.
Given these summaries:
Option A:
  • "The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova" does not precisely capture the focus of Passage A, which is more about the real-world implications and discoveries in virtual economies, not just Castronova’s theories.
  • "Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds" is more relevant to the legal aspects of virtual worlds, but Passage B deals more broadly with taxation rather than intellectual property.
Option B:
  • "An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory" is an appropriate title for Passage A, as it reflects Castronova’s discovery of a new economic dimension within virtual worlds.
  • "Taxing Virtual Property" is an appropriate title for Passage B, as it focuses on the tax issues related to virtual items and currencies.
Option C:
  • "The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games" does not fully capture the economic aspect discussed in Passage A, which is more about virtual currencies and trading.
  • "Virtual Reality and the Law" is too broad and does not specifically address the tax aspects covered in Passage B.
Option D:
  • "How to Make Money Playing Games" simplifies Passage A’s focus and does not cover the economic discovery aspect as well.
  • "Closing Virtual Tax Shelters" implies a specific solution or policy, which does not match the broader discussion of taxation in Passage B.
Option E:
  • "A New Economic Paradigm" is too broad and not as specific to the economic discovery described in Passage A.
  • "An Untapped Source of Revenue" does not accurately reflect the tax-related focus of Passage B.
Therefore, the most fitting pair of titles that accurately represent the main themes of Passage A and Passage B are:
B. "An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory" “Taxing Virtual Property”
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Based on what can be inferred from their titles, the relationship between which one of the following pairs of documents is most analogous to the relationship between passage A and passage B?

Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.The passages were most likely taken from which one of the following pairs of sources?

Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following most accurately expresses how the use of the phrase “skinning animals” in passage A (line 24) relates to the use of the phrase “fish pulled from the ocean” in passage B (line 49)?

Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.With regard to their respective attitudes toward commerce in virtual items, passage A differs from passage B in that passage A is more

Individual studies and experiments the world over have shown that a strong correlation exists between music and mood --- listening to a particular kind of music impacts the mood of the listener. In fact studies have also shown that, in everyday life, music is primarily used for mood and emotion regulation. Indeed, one of the reasons music is able to transcend the barriers of language and garner universal appeal is the emotional response it evokes in its listeners. However, not all people respond similarly to the same kind of music.A new study shows that listening to the same piece of sad music can actually make some people happy while others sad. Clearly, the difference in the response generated is due to the difference or the lack of the same in the perceived and the induced emotions experienced by the participants. Perceived emotion is defined as the act of sensing the emotional content of the stimuli whereas induced emotion is the emotion felt by the receiver after being subjected to the stimuli.In the study, the participants with a higher level of exposure to and knowledge of music were the ones who reported being happy after listening to the music, while others reported as being sad. These participants rated the piece of sad music as highly unpleasant on the scale of perceived emotions; however, their induced emotion score was really low for the level of unpleasantness experienced by them and hence did not match with their perceived emotions score. For this reason, these participants felt that they could enjoy the piece of music without feeling sad and hence reported their emotional state as closer to being happy.However, the findings of the study do not necessarily suggest that the perceived emotion score by the not so musically literate was low. It could just mean that either their perceived and induced emotion scores coincided or that the difference between the two was insignificant.Each of the following can be inferred from the passage EXCEPT

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?a)“The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”b)“An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”c)“The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”d)“How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”e)“A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?a)“The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”b)“An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”c)“The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”d)“How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”e)“A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?a)“The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”b)“An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”c)“The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”d)“How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”e)“A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?a)“The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”b)“An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”c)“The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”d)“How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”e)“A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?a)“The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”b)“An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”c)“The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”d)“How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”e)“A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?a)“The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”b)“An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”c)“The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”d)“How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”e)“A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?a)“The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”b)“An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”c)“The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”d)“How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”e)“A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?a)“The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”b)“An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”c)“The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”d)“How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”e)“A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?a)“The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”b)“An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”c)“The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”d)“How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”e)“A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage A is from a source published in 2004 and passage B is from a source published in 2007.Passage AMillions of people worldwide play multiplayer online games. They each pick, say, a medieval character to play, such as a warrior. Then they might band together in quests to slay magical beasts; their (5) avatars appear as tiny characters striding across a Tolkienesque land.The economist Edward Castronova noticed something curious about the game he played: it had its own economy, a bustling trade in virtual goods. (10) Players generate goods as they play, often by killing creatures for their treasure and trading it. The longer they play, the wealthier they get.Things got even more interesting when Castronova learned about the “player auctions.” Players would (15) sometimes tire of the game and decide to sell off their virtual possessions at online auction sites.As Castronova stared at the auction listings, he recognized with a shock what he was looking at. It was a form of currency trading! Each item had a value (20) in the virtual currency traded in the game; when it was sold on the auction site, someone was paying cold hard cash for it. That meant that the virtual currency was worth something in real currency. Moreover, since players were killing monsters or skinning animals to (25) sell their pelts, they were, in effect, creating wealth.Passage BMost multiplayer online games prohibit real-world trade in virtual items, but some actually encourage it, for example, by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations.(30) Although it seems intuitively the case that someone who accepts real money for the transfer of a virtual item should be taxed, what about the player who only accumulates items or virtual currency within a virtual world? Is “loot” acquired in a game taxable, (35) as a prize or award is? And is the profit in a purely in-game trade or sale for virtual currency taxable? These are important questions, given the tax revenues at stake, and there is pressure on governments to answer them, given that the economies of some virtual (40) worlds are comparable to those of small countries.Most people’s intuition probably would be that accumulation of assets within a game should not be taxed even though income tax applies even to noncash accessions to wealth. This article will argue that (45) income tax law and policy support that result. Loot acquisitions in game worlds should not be treated as taxable prizes and awards, but rather should be treated like other property that requires effort to obtain, such as fish pulled from the ocean, which is taxed only (50) upon sale. Moreover, in-game trades of virtual items should not be treated as taxable barter.By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, (55) even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out. This approach would leave entertainment value untaxed without creating a tax shelter for virtual commerce.Which one of the following pairs of titles would be most appropriate for passage A and passage B, respectively?a)“The Economic Theories of Edward Castronova” “Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Worlds”b)“An Economist Discovers New Economic Territory” “Taxing Virtual Property”c)“The Surprising Growth of Multiplayer Online Games” “Virtual Reality and the Law”d)“How to Make Money Playing Games” “Closing Virtual Tax Shelters”e)“A New Economic Paradigm” “An Untapped Source of Revenue”Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

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
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup