All of the following, if true, could be seen as supporting the arguments in the passage, EXCEPT:
Started 2 months ago by Shashank in
Explanatory Answer
The author calls the crisis "absolutely amazing story, full of human interest and drama, one whose byways of mathematics, economics, and psychology are both central to the story". So, Option A is in line with the arguments in the passage.
While beginning to work on the crisis the author wrote that was extending the laws to control risky investment vehicles was essential to avoid a global financial disaster. Option B, too, is in line with the arguments in the passage.
The author also states that "there is a need to narrow that gap, if the financial industry is not to be a kind of priesthood, administering to its own mysteries and feared and resented by the rest of us". In other words, financial matters have become very arcane and difficult to understand. So, option D supports the arguments in the passage.
However, in the last paragraph, the author states that the economic crisis shows the failure of the personally and economically individualistic ideology of the Western world. So, option C, if true, does not support the arguments in the passage.
-
No one is replied to this question yet. Be first to reply!
