Catholic Trial Multiple Choice Q 1 (1 Viewer)

[sunjet]

Sunjet if you are going to quote something at least quote it correctly.

You're kidding me right? Don't just read the first paragraph, click on the word document which actually tells you what the WTO is in detail.

NAFTA is correct, but i'm arguing WTO should also be correct.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

WTO is an agreement, and a multilateral one at that.
both text AND diagram support this on p26 of Australia in the Global Economy 2005 Edition by Tim Dixon & John O'Mahony published September 2004. © Leading Edge Education 2004.

kthx

case closed.

As I stated in an earlier post, you cannot rely solely on the textbook to provide the correct answers, or even correct information. Textbooks get it wrong sometimes - that's a fact.
The WTO website is really the only definitive source in regards to this question, and the quote I published clearly implies that the WTO is not in fact an agreement, but rather an organisation that fosters trade agreements.

Had this been an HSC question, you would have no grounds for dispute. The Leading Edge textbook is by no means the Economics "Bible" and therefore cannot be used to justify the correctness of a solution.

 

[Conspirocy]

you know at the end of the day, its one mark!

like really, if you dont like the answer tough luck, thats the answer right or right.

just rope learn to not pick wto as a multilateral agreement and end of problem, like why are you devoting such time to getting one mark?? ---> how about you focus on another area, that might be worth more marks, instead of arguing about it at highschool.

imagine what you could learn if you applied yourself this much to learning someting, rather than trying to change one tiny, useless mark

 

[Conspirocy]

i really dont care, im just putting up an argument purely because i can.. i really couldnt give a fk.
ive had textbooks get solutions to questions wrong, but never come across information being wrong, you'd think they'd get it right after, i dunno, 15 odd years+ of hsc economics.

all in all, it's worth one mark and i couldnt really care less, im over it.

well because one likes to put up an argument purely becase one can, i think i might join you in that

WTO is only 10 years old okay

"This year marks the 10th anniversary of the creation of the World Trade Organization on January 1, 1995 as part of the entry into force of the agreements concluded under the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, signed by ministers at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994. " - http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/10anniv_e/10anniv_e.htm

also i would say that leading edge has been making their economics textbook for 9 years
"By 1996, we were publishing textbooks, running a series of workshops during holidays, getting out to schools around New South Wales to run seminars." - http://www.leadingedge.com.au/profile.html

and you can also say that the economics syllabus was written/published in 1999 so i guess that only makes it 6 years for economists to get their stuff together

id say that b4 1999 the syllabus did not cover the world trade organisation but i cant prove that, and could be completely wrong

but thats just for the sake or arguing it

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

this is all dixons fault, the book is mistaken, the answer is 100 percent NAFTA, WTO is not an agreement. the book is wrong. dixon is wrong. and he should pay. it cost alot of people 1 mark.

 

[underthebridge]

With NAFTA being a regional agreement, it implies that it is multilateral. A regional agreement is a mutlilateral agreement (the reverse is not necessarily the case though).