A number of measures indicate the viability of a nation's economy. The level and rate of growth of aggregate output a...

on June 28, 2021

How does A not work too?

I can get how C is the correct answer but it seems that A can work too. What is inferred from the question is that the population of a country that is economically viable does not really matter. One can be a tiny microstate like Denmark or the third-largest country in the world like the US and have a viable economy. Finland is more economically viable than Pakistan, despite its smaller population. So how do you wrap around the possibility that population could be a factor if you are suggesting that A is not an answer. It clearly could be, since all these nations have variable sizes in populations and yet have stable economies.

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Marissa on May 11, 2022

^^^^^ I am also wondering why A is incorrect

Emil on May 13, 2022

Hi ssn443232,

A certainly does look attractive, but there is one flaw with it- the word "independent." To say that an economy's viability is independent of its size is to say there is no correlation between those two things. The passage supports the idea that it is not entirely dependent on population size (which is well reflected in C), but we cannot establish that there is no connection at all. Additionally, it may be that there is a threshold at which viability is completely dependent on population size, but that threshold is smaller than the countries discussed. All of the countries discussed are in the ballpark of 5 million- maybe it is necessary to have over 50,000 people for economic viability. The passage does not give us enough information to support (A).