- [Tutor] The main purpose of the passage is to what?
All right, I've covered up the choices
because I want to do a process called the Rip RAP.
I'm gonna write that down real quick, Rip RAP.
And that stands for, Rephrase if possible
and Read Around and Predict.
And I really wanna focus on
the rephrasing and the prediction.
This is a technique that I like to use to help me make sense
of questions and rephrase them in my own words
so that I have power over them.
It makes it easier for me to understand.
So first I'm gonna rephrase.
So the main purpose of this passage is to what?
And we can flip that around and ask the question like,
what was the author trying to accomplish?
Let's try that, you know, what was the author's goal?
I'll just write that, author's goal.
And we really lucked out on this passage
because it kind of gives it away in the title, right?
Because it's asking the question, can economics be ethical?
Right. We're very fortunate in that regard.
My prediction is going to be
that the main purpose of the passage
is to try to answer the question,
Can economics be ethical?
When I did my active read of the passage
I learned about the three different competing ideas
that the author brings up.
And so now let's expose the choices
and see what we're working with.
My prediction about the answer
is that it's going to be related
to the question of whether or not Econ can be ethical.
Let's look for the choices that match that prediction.
Choice A, the purpose of the passage
is to consider an ethical dilemma
posed by cost-benefit analysis.
Does that match my prediction? No.
B, describe a psychology study
of ethical economic behavior.
Does that match my prediction? No does not.
C, argue that the free market prohibits ethical economics.
Does that match my prediction
about the ways in which economics can be ethical?
No, it does not.
I'm gonna cross that off, that leaves us with D,
examine ways of evaluating the ethics of economics.
Cool. So I've made my way to the answer pretty quickly.
I just wanna show you the power of Rip RAP,
of rephrasing the question in your mind.
Maybe writing it down and then coming up with a prediction
about what you expect the answer to be.
So we've knocked out this question
and on test day you would move on to the next one
but because this is a slowed down instructional video
I wanna break down for you
why the other choices were not correct.
So we can talk about some common varieties of wrong choice
that you're going to see on ACT.
So looking back at choice A.
Why did I Mark that as incorrect?
Why did I cross it off?
Well, I think of considering an ethical dilemma posed
by cost-benefit analysis
as certainly something that was mentioned in the passage,
cost-benefit analysis was mentioned
in discussing Adam Smith.
Right here we are on line 19.
"Whenever planners use cost-benefit analysis
"to justify a new rail line, blah, blah, blah."
But, that doesn't really have anything
to do with the purpose of the passage.
In fact, an ethical dilemma is not posed
by cost-benefit analysis in the passage.
But even if it were,
it wouldn't have taken up very much space in the argument.
So I would call this kind of choice too narrow.
It's too specific to be about the main purpose
of the passage.
And a great way to consider
whether or not something is too narrow
is to evaluate how much actual physical space
that argument takes up on the page.
If an ethical dilemma posed by cost-benefit analysis
were a major part that consumed multiple paragraphs
of the passage, then I might be like,
oh maybe that has met part of the main purpose.
But it's sort of a throwaway reference in one line
so we can cross it off and say, that's too narrow.
Choice B describes a psychology study
of ethical economic behavior.
I don't think this actually happens in the passage.
Let's see, 'cause the last couple of paragraphs do mention,
yeah, there we are.
The last paragraph talks about behavioral economists here.
I'm on line 67 talking about how,
about how like psychologists and neuroscientists
can help change the field of economics
and make it more ethical.
But a specific study is not described.
So this just straight up doesn't happen in the passage
which is why I felt confident crossing it off.
And then C is also too narrow.
It argues that the free market prohibits ethical economics.
And this is an argument that is very briefly raised
but it's not one of the three core philosophies
that the passage is largely about.
And so again, I would say this is too narrow.
Choices can also be too broad.
So while A and C are too narrow and specific
I can also easily imagine a choice that is too broad
and too unspecific to be correct.
Again, we lucked out with this question, right?
It's asking a question that is itself
asked in the title of the passage.
But for future questions like this one
if you're trying to determine the main purpose of a passage
look to see if the idea is mentioned throughout the passage
and in the intro and the conclusion
because if it's not, it's probably too narrow.