Verbal Ability - Comprehension - Discussion

Discussion Forum : Comprehension - Section 24 (Q.No. 2)
Directions to Solve
Modern economies does not differentiate between renewable and non-renewable materials, as its method is to measures everything by means of a money price. Thus, taking various alternatives fuels, like coal, oil, wood or water power: the only difference between them recognised by modern economics is relative cost per equivalent unit. The cheapest is automatically the one to be preferred, as to do otherwise would be irrational and 'uneconomic'. From a Buddhist point of view of course this will not do, the essential difference between non-renewable fuels like coal and oil on the one hand and renewable fuels like wood and water power on the other cannot be simply overlooked. Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indespensible, and then only with the greatest care and the highest concern for conservation. To use them carelessly or extravagantly is an act of violence, and while complete non-violence may not be possible on earth, it is nonetheless the duty of man to aim at deal of non-violence in all he does.

2.
According to the passage, Buddhist economists are not in favour of
measuring everything in terms of money
using non-renewable sources
economic development
applying non-violence to every sphere of life
Answer: Option
Explanation:
No answer description is available. Let's discuss.
Discussion:
4 comments Page 1 of 1.

Mr. Se7en said:   10 years ago
Option A - Modern economics measure everything in terms of money is doesn't not mean buddhist are against it.

Option C - Nowhere they discussed about economic development.

Option D - Irrelevant option violence : ().

Option B - No doubt passage is all about comparing modern and buddhist thinking about resource where modern economic measure everything in term of money so their focus is on less expensive fuel and buddhist support non-renewable fuel resources.

Pratha said:   5 years ago
"Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indispensable, and then only with the greatest care and the highest concern for conservation. To use them carelessly or extravagantly is an act of violence, and while complete non-violence may not be possible on earth, it is nonetheless the duty of man to aim at the deal of non-violence in all he does. This doesn't suggest that Buddhist economists are not in favour of using non-renewable sources.

Viss said:   1 decade ago
The paragraph says only if the non renewable resources are indispensable. So we can't chose this directly.
(1)

Shaibaz said:   10 years ago
I thought answer is A.
(1)

Post your comments here:

Your comments will be displayed after verification.