EC120 Lecture 2: Chapter 2

20 views4 pages

emeraldhamster483

18 Dec 2015

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

carminegrasshopper545 and 38337 others unlocked

EC120 Full Course Notes

Verified Note

30 documents

Document Summary

Graphs of two variables variables a single graph variables easy to see. Economists are often concerned with the relationships between. The coordinate system makes possible the display of two variables on. The coordinate system makes the correlation between the two. Economists also often look at how one variable affects another, holding everything else constant. To see how this is done, lets consider one of the most important graphs in economics, the demand curve. One goes up, other goes down negative correlation. Movement on the curve has to do with x or y. Important to distinguish between movements along a curve and shifts of a curve shifts. When a variable that is not named on either axis changes, the curve. The slope of a line is the ratio of the vertical distance covered to the horizontal distance covered as we move along the line. Bigger slope becomes vertical, smaller slope becomes more horizontal.

Related Questions

Can you solve them and tell me if youre sure 100% 100% 100%

Question 1 (1 point)

If two variables move together but are otherwise unrelated, we have

Question 1 options:

a fallacy of composition.

an econometric model.

a spurious correlation.

an efficiency problem.

evidence of a weak correlation but strong causation.

Save

Question 2 (1 point)

The Latin expression "ceteris paribus": is essential in ______.

Question 2 options:

collecting data.

identifying sunk costs.

evaluating theories.

recognizing scarcity.

developing spurious relationships.

Save

Question 3 (1 point)

Opportunity cost is best defined as

Question 3 options:

marginal cost minus marginal benefit.

the time spent on an economic activity.

the value of the best forgone alternative.

the monetary cost of an economic decision.

marginal cost plus marginal benefit.

Save

Question 4 (1 point)

A cost that cannot be recovered at the time a decision is being made is termed a(n)

Question 4 options:

marginal cost.

scarcity cost.

sunk cost.

average cost.

opportunity cost.

Save

Question 5 (1 point)

If the marginal costs of 1, 2, and 3 hours of talking on the phone are $50, $75, and $105, then the total costs are

Question 5 options:

$50, $150, and $315.

$50, $41.67, and $115.

$50, 125, and $230.

$50, $175, and $405.

impossible to calculate with information given.

Save

Question 6 (1 point)

In general, individuals should specialize in producing those goods for which they

Question 6 options:

can produce more quickly than others.

can produce less quickly than others.

have the lowest opportunity cost compared to others.

have the highest opportunity cost compared to others.

have an average opportunity cost.

Save

Question 7 (1 point)

The extra benefit that comes from an extra unit of activity is called the _________ of the activity.

Question 7 options:

benefit

marginal benefit

marginal cost

average benefit

reservation benefit

Save

Question 8 (1 point)

The marginal benefit of an activity is the

Question 8 options:

same as the total benefits of the activity.

total benefit divided by the level of the activity.

change in the activity divided by the change in benefits.

extra benefit associated with an extra unit of the activity.

total benefit divided by the change in the level of the activity.

Save

Question 9 (1 point)

The fundamental problem that is studied in economics is that

Question 9 options:

consumers have limited wants in the face of unlimited resources.

markets should function without government interference.

Canada is too wealthy.

consumers have unlimited wants in the face of limited resources.

there are unlimited resources.

Save

Question 10 (1 point)

The range of topics, or issues, that fit within the definition of economics is

Question 10 options:

limited to market activities, e.g., buying soap.

limited to individuals and firms.

extremely wide, requiring only the ideas of choice and scarcity.

limited to governments and nations.

very limited.

Save

Question 11 (1 point)

When economists make predictions using the framework of a given economic model, it is usually based on

Question 11 options:

personal experiences.

important relationships between particular variables.

mathematical abstractions.

political implications.

the profit-maximizing objective.

Save

Question 12 (1 point)

The cost of spending an evening partying instead of studying economics is

Question 12 options:

the resulting decrease in the test score in Economics.

the time spent at the party.

the score of the test.

the cost of the textbook.

university tuition.

Save

Question 13 (1 point)

As one progresses from a one-person economy to a large, multi-person economy, the shape of production possibilities curve changes from

Question 13 options:

downward sloping to upwards sloping.

linear to convex (bowed into the origin).

concave (bowed out from the origin) to linear.

convex (bowed into the origin) to concave (bowed out from the origin).

linear to concave (bowed out from the origin).

Save

Question 14 (1 point)

Which is NOT a sunk cost?

Question 14 options:

Monthly rent of $1,000 contractually specified in a one-year lease.

An insurance premium of $50 per year, paid last month.

An attorney's retainer of $50,000 per year.

A worker's wage of $15 per hour.

A non-refundable deposit for a tender.

Save

Question 15 (1 point)

"We should support government intervention because the market produces undesirable outcomes" is an example of

Question 15 options:

positive economics.

normative economics.

comparative economics.

negative economics.

formative economics.

Save

amberchimpanzee966

Write a summary of of this article below. You should write at least one paragraph.

ABSTRACT
Feminist theories in sociology reflect the rich diversity of general theoretical
orientations in our discipline; there is no one form of feminist theory. The development
of these theories over the last 25 years has only recently begun to
influence the mainstream theory canon, which has much to learn from their insights.
This chapter demonstrates why feminist versions of the following theory
types should be more fully integrated into mainstream sociological theory:
neo-Marxist, macro-structural, exchange, rational choice, network, status expectations,
symbolic interactionist, ethnomethodological, neo-Freudian, and social
role. Feminist standpoint theory, an epistemological critique of mainstream sociology,
is discussed at the beginning, and the chapter concludes with a brief
account of the newly developing effort to theorize the intersection of race, class,
and gender.
INTRODUCTION
The term âfeminist theoryâ is used to refer to a myriad of kinds of works, produced
by movement activists and scholars in a variety of disciplines; these are
not mutually exclusive and include: (a) normative discussions of how societies
and relationships ought to be structured, their current inequities, and strategies to
achieve equity; (b) critiques of androcentric classical theories, concepts, epistemologies,
and assumptions; (c) epistemological discussions of what constitute
appropriate forms, subject matters, and techniques of theorizing from a feminist
perspective; and (d ) explanatory theories of the relationship between gender and

various social, cultural, economic, psychological, and political structures and
processes. Much of this work is explicitly interdisciplinary in inspiration and
intended audience. To complicate matters further, there is no consensus on the
exact meaning of the word âfeminist,â which makes it difficult to distinguish
with precision between theoretical material that pertains to gender (e.g. Parsons
1949, 1955, which no one would label feminist) and gender-related theory that
is specifically âfeminist.â Finally, there is little consensus among feminist sociologists
about the basic theoretical questions that require an answer, resulting
in the proliferation of theories at a low level of abstraction that explain specific
phenomena (e.g. pay inequity), in addition to more abstract, general works.
To remain within the limits of one chapter, I confine this review in several
ways, beginning by excluding feminist theory that has not been produced or used
extensively by sociologists. While feminist theory is often defined as âwomencenteredâ
(e.g. Lengermann & Niebrugge 1996:436; Smith 1979, 1987; Alway
1995), I use a definition that focuses more broadly on gender, yet maintains the
normative emphasis implied by all definitions of the term feminist, which thus
enables one to distinguish feminist from other gender-relevant theory.

Some feminists focus on those contemporary theories and texts that ignore
the contributions of feminist theories and the topic of gender and conclude that
feminist contributions remain largely ghettoized within our discipline (e.g.Ward
& Grant 1991, Alway 1995). My view is that, while progress has been made
in integrating feminist concerns and insights into the disciplineâs theoretical
discourse, much work remains to be done. This chapter demonstrates the
abundance and variety of feminist theoretical insights that can and already have
to some extent contributed to a more robust theoretical understanding of social
life, one which reflects the centrality of gender in virtually all sociocultural
contexts. It also demonstrates that feminist theories emanate from, critique, and
revise the rich array of theoretical traditions that define our discipline. Space
limitations preclude much discussion of precisely how feminist theories can be
better integrated with mainstream ones. Rather, I focus attention primarily on
reviewing the central insights of feminist theories in order to better inform those
sociologists who may be unfamiliar with much of this body of work about the
rich array of theoretical ideas that are at their disposal.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES
Much of the literature that is labeled âfeminist theoryâ consists of epistemology
and epistemological critiques of âmalestreamâ sociology. Its foundations reflect
several nonfeminist traditions, especially Marxâs and Mannheimâs discussions
of ideology, Foucaultâs work on knowledge and power, and phenomenological
and ethnomethodological approaches, the exact mix of influences varying by
author. While this work makes important contributions to these traditions, for
two reasons I believe that it is a misnomer to call thiswork feminist epistemology
(or theory). First, the issues raised are not in any fundamental way different
from those raised by many scholars who haveworked in these traditions but have
not been interested specifically in women or committed to feminism. Feminists
extend their insights in important ways, but this does not constitute a uniquely feminist approach to sociology. Second, many women in sociology, whose
scholarship they and others consider as well within the feminist tradition, do
not agree with this perspective.
Feminist scholars in a number of disciplines critique what they define as
mainstream, âmasculinist,â âobjectivist,â and âpositivistâ social science, and
develop a âfeministâ alternative called standpoint theory. In sociology, the
two most widely cited are Dorothy Smith (especially 1987, 1990, also 1979,
1989) and Patricia Hill Collins (especially 1990, also 1986, 1989), whose basic
ideas constitute the focus of this section (see also Harding 1986, 1991). Where
Smith focuses on developing a âwomanâs standpoint,â Collinsâ work is directed
at an Afrocentric feminist standpoint epistemology. The Issue of Essentialism
Feminist standpoint theory, which is highly attuned to reification committed by
mainstream sociologists, cannot avoid reifying the genders. While Smith and
Collins explicitly recognize considerable variation among women (and presumably
men) in their experiences and consciousness, their own logics, and
many times wording, make it clear that they assume that there are overarching,
gender-specific standpoints; they could not otherwise talk about a âmasculineâ
form of discourse. In addition, Collins explicitly cites such feminist theorists
as Gilligan (1982) and Chodorow (1978, also 1974), who argue that the
genders are fundamentally different in their moral reasoning and capacities
for/commitments to interpersonal relationships.
Positing dichotomous gender differences that are treated as transcultural and
transhistorical is termed âessentialism,â a view that has substantial currency
among feminists in a variety of disciplines but is hotly contested in our own
(e.g. Lorber et al 1981, Coser 1989, Epstein 1988). The empirical evidence for
it is flawed, often based on small, nonrandom, American samples, and typically
finds only modest differences, along with extensive overlap, between the sexes.
Essentialist thinking converts differences of degree into differences of kind. The
presumed but often unstated origin of essential differences includes psychodynamics
rooted in the parental division of labor (Chodorow 1978) and biological
sex (Rossi 1977, 1984). It has become common for feminist scholars to recognize
within-gender categorical differences (e.g. race, class), but this awareness
of difference has often failed to preclude essentialist thinking about basic personality
and value orientations (e.g. the assumption that, regardless of other
differences, women are nurturant and oriented toward personal relationships,
while men are individuating and oriented toward abstract moral principles).
Given that the evidence suggests modest between-sex and considerable withinsex
differences on virtually all individual-level traits, a dichotomous gender
variable is theoretically useless when speaking of individual-level phenomena.
Explanations that begin by categorically attributing different characteristics
to women and menâcognitive, emotional, relational, and/or behavioralânot
only exaggerate differences in the distribution of such traits by gender, they also
implicitly treat these variables as dichotomous rather than continuous.

EC120 Lecture 2: Chapter 2

EC120 Full Course Notes

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

EC120 Lecture 2: EC 120 Lecture 2: EC120 – Lecture #2: A Brief Review of Graphing & Thinking Like An Economist

EC120 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Pie Chart, Demand Curve, Time Series

EC120 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Pie Chart, Bar Chart, Demand Curve

Related Questions