| Toru |
Sunday, April 19, 2015 01:04 PM |
[SIZE="4"][FONT="Book Antiqua"][COLOR="Navy"]There need not be an explicit mention of the use of mathematical content. It is intimately embedded in its structure. The structure of Economics is composed of three elements: Graphical Explanations, Mathematical Proofs and Intuitive Explanations.
Say, for example, you are given a question on consumer behaviour, one where you need to derive the indifference curve, the budget constraint and how both are related; what condition satisfies consumer preference; what limitations there are to consumer choice as well as limitations in graphical analysis, for example: the possibility of working in the confines of only two axes, x and y, which as convenient as it may be for economic analysis is nonetheless a crude limitation. Providing a mathematical proof of these properties, at least in such cases, and given that a question is weighted 20 marks become crucial. The graphs are basically a visual demonstration of mathematical proofs. And written explanation further follows graphical explanations.
Though it may not be necessary, but using all three tools instrumentally to reflect an understanding of the subject is what shall distinguish you from those simply reproducing 'general' concepts and not those in particular to the question. This is what adds to the 'critical' element of your answer.
Economics is quiet a rigorous science. Though I do not mean to discourage those having no background of the subject, those who have majored in Economics will fare much better and are therefore encouraged to opt for it.
As regards Paper II, that is purely theoretical and requires a considerable amount of reading. It should be manageable for everyone.
Waqas Izhar's guidance shall prove valuable for all wanting to take this subject, essentially in light of his experience of sitting for its examination.:clap[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
|
