The Meat Market Summary (English/Nepali) And Question Answers | Mero Solution

The Meat Market Summary And Question Answers

The Meat Market Summary And Question Answers
Alex Taghi Tabarrok

Contents :
1) Summary of The Meat Market in English
2) Summary of The Meat Market in Nepali
3) Question Answers of The Meat Market
3.1) Comprehensive Question Answers of The Meat Market
3.2) Purpose and Audience Question Answers of The Meat Market
3.3) Style and Structure Question Answers of The Meat Market
Summary of The Meat Market in English
                                       - Alex Taghi Tabarrok

The main idea of this essay is about donation organs from people and also the shortage of actual organs. The essay also talks about thousand of people who wait for transplant but later they die while waiting.
"Iran has eliminated waiting lists for kidneys entirely by paying its citizens to donate."

"Millions of people suffer from kidney disease, but in 2007 there were just 64,606 kidney-transplant operations in the entire world. In the U.S. alone, 83,000 people wait on the official kidney-transplant list.
But just 16,500 people received a kidney transplant in 2008, while almost 5,000 dies waiting for one."
"To combat yet another shortfall, some American doctors are routinely removing pieces of tissue from deceased patients for transplant without their, or their families, prior consent. And the practice perfectly legal."

"The shortage of organs has increased the use of so-called expanded criteria organs, or organs that used to be considered unsuitable for transplant. Kidneys donated from people over the age of 60 or from people who had various medical problems are more likely to fail than organs from younger, healthier donors, but they are now being used under the pressure."

"Already, the black market may account for 5% to 10% of transplants world-wide."

"Only one country, Iran, has eliminated the shortage of transplant organs-and only Iran has a working and legal payment system for organ donation." (although the payment system works mainly through the government)

"The Iranian system and the black market demonstrate one important fact: The organ shortage can be solved by paying living donors. The Iranian system began in 1988 and eliminated the shortage of kidneys by 1999. Writing in the Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2007, Nobel Laureate economist Gary Becker and Julio Elias estimated that a payment of $15,000 for living donors would alleviate the shortage of kidneys in the U.S. Payment could be made by the federal government to avoid any hint of inequality in kidney allocation. Moreover, this proposal would save the government money since even with a significant payment, transplant is cheaper than the dialysis that is now paid for by Medicare's End Stage Renal Disease program."
Summary of The Meat Market in Nepali  

The meat market summary in Nepali

Question Answers of The Meat Market

A. Comprehensive :

Q.1. What, according to Tabarrok, is "the great paradox of deceased donation(5)"? Why is this paradox significant?

ANSWER : The paradox is that when collecting organs from the deceased, a line between life and death must be determined, but there is no agreed-upon way of determining where that line is. This is a problem because it makes collecting healthy organs from the deceased a controversial process that leaves doctors at risk of prosecution and overall lowers the amount of organs collected from donors.

Q.2. What positive developments in the last several decades have "led to fewer potential brain-dead donors than in the past" (6) ?

ANSWER : Brain death has been reduced as a result of improved automotive safety and reduced crime.

Q.3. Tabarrok identifies one country that has eliminated shortages in transplant organs. Which country? How has this been accomplished?

ANSWER : Tabarrok writes about how Iran has successfully eliminated the transplant organ shortage by developing a system in which donors are legally financially compensated for donation.

B. Purpose and Audience :

Q.1. What is your reaction to Tabarrok's title? To his essay's opening sentence? Do you think these are the reactions he expected readers to have? Explain.

ANSWER : From the title, I would have expected the essay to be about the literal meat market and the consumption of animals; it was a bit shocking (and a little gross) to see that it was referring to human organs. This is probably the reaction that Tabarrok wanted; it's a way to grab the reader's intention and to make them want to read more.

Q.2. Tabarrok's introduction relies on certain assumptions regarding his readers' attitudes about organ harvesting. What are these assumptions? Do you find this introduction effective? Why or why not?

ANSWER : Tabarrok assumes that his readers will be wary of the idea of "organ harvesting" from live donors, believing that the phrase will evoke imagery of horror movies in readers' minds. When he talks about countries that are paying those willing to donate, he likely assumes that the reader will associate paying for organs with the black market. These assumptions are fair given the presence of such tropes in American society. This introduction is quite effective because it prompts the reader to first acknowledge that they have these feelings about organ donation before Tabarrok slowly urges his audience to challenge those feelings.

Q.3. According to Tabarrok, presumed consent "has less support in the US" than in other countries. What does he think might change that ? Does he support "presumed consent"?

ANSWER : Tabarrok believes that presumed consent could gain more support if it were tested on a state level first. He also suggests implementing incentives like payments toward funeral expenses or discounted drivers license fees for organ donors

Q.4. In paragraph 5, Tabarrok raises one of the most profound questions influencing the debate about organ donations: what is the dividing line between life and death? However, he avoids further discussion of this issue in his essay. Why? Would his essay have been stronger if he had elaborated on the subject? Why or why not?

ANSWER : Tabarrok made the right decision in not elaborating on this topic. It is, as he said, an unsolvable debate; there's no way to know for sure where the line is between life and death. It's a philosophical question with an enormous amount of nuance that would be very difficult for him to try to address sufficiently.

C. Style and structure :

Q.1. Tabarrok is an economist. Do you think he approaches the subject differently from the way a member of the clergy, a lawyer, or a physician would? What advantages does his perspective give him?

ANSWER : Tabarrok understands the ways in which financial factors drive people and shape society in a way that physicians or members of the clergy may not. He looks at things more logically and focuses on the idea of supply and demand and uses this perspective to think of ways in which the organ donation system could be improved, which works well for him.

Q.2. Tabarrok uses cause and effect several times in the essay. Identify two examples. How effective are they? How do they support his overall purpose?

ANSWER : In paragraph 3, Tabarrok writes about how, in reaction to organ donation scarcity (cause), doctors routinely remove tissue from deceased patients without the consent of the patient or the patient's family (pg 608). In paragraph 11, Tabarrok discusses how Iran's legal payment system (cause) eliminated transplant organ shortage (effect).

These two examples work well to help Tabarrok make his points. The first example helps to show just how scarce transplantable organs are in the US; the procedure he discusses is completely legal. The second example shows just how effective programs that provide compensation can be in increasing organ donation.

Q.3. In paragraph 12, Tabarrok uses Inductive reasoning. Does his inference seem justified? Why or why not?

ANSWER : Tabarrok uses inductive reasoning to conclude that financial compensation is the key to solving the organ shortage. This conclusion does seem reasonable given the success that other countries have had and the estimates he cites from Becker and Elias.

Q.4. Tabarrok repeatedly writes in the passive voice-for example, in paragraphs 4 and 8. Would rewriting such sentences in the active voice make the sentences and the writer's argument stronger? Why or why not?

ANSWER : I believe that the passive voice is appropriate in these paragraphs; I don't believe there is any need to rewrite them to be in the active voice.
In paragraph 4, Tabarrok writes in the passive voice that "innovation has occurred" in the US. The passive voice works well here because Tabarrok is not required to go into specifics as to whom championed these innovations or to use personal pronouns; such information is irrelevant to his point.

In paragraph 8, Tabarrok writes that "everyone is considered to be a potential organ donor..." This works well in the passive voice for a similar reason. The passive voice allows Tabarrok to talk about how citizens are viewed across countries with similar laws without having to use said countries as a subject, which can be tricky to word succinctly.

Q.6. Evaluate Tabarrok's title. Given his purpose, audience, and subject matter, do you think it is appropriate? Explain.

ANSWER : While I understand that Tabarrok likely intended this title to be an ironic attention-grabber, I don't believe it was an appropriate choice for his purpose. It could be seen as to dehumanizing to those involved in the organ donation process and also makes the idea seem gruesome.

Post a Comment