Multiple Choice
Economists argue that consumers are rational and that they allocate their income among the purchase of goods in such a way that maximizes their total utility. The higher their income, the more goods they buy and the higher is the total utility. If that's the case, how do you explain the fact that many people willingly give up some of their income to help the less fortunate? Do they sacrifice utility?
A) Of course they sacrifice total utility but that doesn't make them irrational. They get satisfaction from helping others.
B) They sacrifice only that part of total utility that the income given away would have generated had it been spent on goods used for themselves. Irrational? Perhaps
according to the economist's definition of rationality, but not according to others.
C) Their total utility is not less because the marginal utility they gain by giving a dollar to others is higher than the marginal utility they derive from spending that dollar on
themselves.
D) We cannot say if their total utility has changed because we cannot engage in interpersonal comparisons of utility.
E) What they lose in total utility, they make up in consumer surplus, and that's rational.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q142: A graph that shows all the equally
Q143: Are we really rational consumers? If so,
Q144: The water and diamond paradox can be
Q145: Given whatever income they have, consumers make
Q146: Suppose that Dianne Lindsay spends all her
Q147: <img src="https://d2lvgg3v3hfg70.cloudfront.net/TB10702/.jpg" alt=" -Referring to Exhibit
Q148: Given the following information about Elizabeth McSnerd's
Q149: A util represents a unit of measurement
Q150: The sum of the marginal utilities of
Q151: Consumer surplus is created when<br>A) a person