<p>I went about 3-4 mins over the time. </p>
<p>I dunno if u need the box info but the question is:</p>
<p>Is price necessarily a reflection of value?</p>
<pre><code> The question “Is price necessarily a reflection of value?” suggests that greatly beneficial products come come at low prices. In other words, something of great value does not have to come at a high price. In my opinion price is not a solid indicator of value. Throughout society and in life, the evidence to support my viewpoint is pervasive.
Consider the case of the Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo Da Vinci in the 17th century. It is one of the most valued pices of artwork in human history. However, its value comes from it being a representation of human achievement and it’s actually worth as much as any regular painting. The high price of the Mona Lisa would would not correlate with its value to those who are ignorant of the painting’s historical significance.
Another example would be the Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton discovered in El Paso, Texas in the early 1900’s. Geologists and Palentologists estimated its value to be billions of dollars. However, the Tyrannosaurus skeleton is priceless because its value comes from its significance in history and in natural science.
Consider the case of the photos my uncle Ping took of his regional swim championships in 1974. To anybody else, those pictures would be worthless. Nevertheless, my uncle values them highly because they remind him of his athletic youth. The monetary price of the photos would not relate to my uncle’s value of them because of the memories associated with them.
Clearly the examples above show a valuable produce does not have to be associated with its monetary value. The Mona Lisa is a simple painting, but one that money cannot buy. A Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton is only a simple collection of bones to those who do not know its historical value. Using monetary price as a guide to value can cause disasterous judgments.
</code></pre>