张剑黄皮书150篇里的句子：
Bad economics has been allowed to drive out good economics. I am sympathetic to the well-intentioned people who commission studies of economic benefit, though not to those who take money for carrying them out. 【They are responding to a climate in which businessmen, fraising the virtues of manufacturing, value the popcorn sold in the interval, but not the performance of the play, arguing that the vendor of consumer goods creates resources, which the subsidised theatre uses up.】
请各路英豪只分析【】内的句子中arguing是修饰“They”还是“businessmen”？为什么？【】外的句子是上文，供句意理解用。
我个人认为是修饰“They”，书上的翻译只是“他们”，稀里糊涂的也说不清楚到底是“they”还是“businessmen”。
谢谢大家了！
再麻烦您一下，您刚说“那些对经济收益进行研究的人，而这些人（即they）”。但是这句话里面，提到的是两类对经济收益进行研究的人，一类是"well-intentioned people"，还有一类是“those who take money for carrying them out”，可不可以理解为后一种“调查是为了收钱”的人为了迎合经济大环境而认为（arguing）......呢？
追答后一种人即those who take money for carrying them out，字面意思是“收钱进行研究的人”，我理解的是这些收钱的人是要证明最前面的"Bad economics has been allowed to drive out good economics"(劣币驱逐良币)，而后面的they我感觉是代指well-intentioned people，后面【】的内容可以看做作者为何“同情理解”这些人的解释。 当然也可以有别的看法，毕竟从语序上讲，收钱研究的those跟后面的 They句子只紧邻的。 总之还是有更多上下文，从语义上分析为好。
句子理解，无法从语法或语义。有时候语法上可能都对，而语义上要看不同情况，也跟个人理解的角度和观点不同有关。 还有就是不要以为凡是En文章 意思一定就是 清晰明确的，就像我们的汉语文章一样，有些英文锻炼也会产生歧义，尤其是一些不太正规的模拟题。而正规的考试题，应该尽量避免这些有歧义的语句段落。
劣币驱逐良币，有baike介绍
http://baike.baidu.com/view/469869.htm
非常抱歉没能给出全文（原文为张剑黄皮书阅读理解2013，基础练习，UNIT4，TEXT1），对于您的理解，我无法赞同。
另外，我看了百科，劣币驱逐良币是Bad money drives out good，而不是Bad economics drives out the good。“货币”跟“经济学”这两者差别很明显吧。
不过还是感谢您的耐心！Thank you all the same!
搜到了原文，是 英国《金融时报》专栏作家 约翰•凯写的 A GOOD ECONOMIST KNOWS THE TRUE VALUE OF THE ARTS
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001034144/ce
其中相关段落如下，这里面的they 感觉应该指 those who take money 即“收钱进行研究的人”。
对比之下，可一看到原文意思更清晰，跟在你发的这个阅读理解的习题中把原文进行了大幅删改，尽管字数减少但意思已经模糊，很容易引起歧义。 所以最好少看这些不是特别规范的 En阅读参考书，直接去读 Guardian等的原文即可， 或者做某些考试如GRE的真题。
But bad economics has been allowed to drive out good. I am sympathetic to the well-intentioned people who commission studies of economic benefit, though not to those who take money for carrying them out. 【They are responding to a climate in which philistine businessmen assert that the private sector company that manufactures pills is a wealth creator, but the public sector doctor who prescribes them is not. Extolling the virtues of manufacturing, they value the popcorn sold in the interval, but not the performance of the play, arguing that the vendor of consumer goods creates resources, which the subsidised theatre uses up.】 People who work in the theatre, hospitals or education are often forced to listen to this nonsense. It should be no surprise that so many of them despise business and the values such business espouses. If these values were truly the values of business they would be right to despise them.
首先指出一点：fraising应为【p】raising
arguing的动作是由businessmen实施的。
They are responding to a climate in which businessmen, fraising the virtues of manufacturing, value the popcorn sold in the interval, but not the performance of the play, arguing that the vendor of consumer goods creates resources, which the subsidised theatre uses up.
这句话里，They是主语，指的是上文的the well-intentioned people，responding to是谓语，a climate 是宾语。
in which businessmen, fraising the virtues of manufacturing, value the popcorn sold in the interval, but not the performance of the play, arguing that the vendor of consumer goods creates resources, which the subsidised theatre uses up. 是定语从句，修饰climate；
这句定语从句中，主语是businessmen，谓语是value，宾语是the popcorn（ sold in the interval是其后置定语）和the performance of the play（否定，共用谓语value）；
【p】raising the virtues of manufacturing 是现在分词短语作定语，修饰businessman；
arguing that the vendor of consumer goods creates resources 是现在分词（that……是argue的宾语从句）作伴随状语，作为value的伴随动作；因为value的动作是 businessmen完成的，所以argue的主语也是businessman；
which the subsidised theatre uses up 是非限定性定语从句，修饰resources。
所以，这句话的意思是：
他们是这样一种社会大环境的产物。在这一大环境中，商人们竭力宣扬产品制造的价值，他们看重的不是戏剧表演本身，而是剧场休息时卖的爆米花。他们的理论依据就是，消费品的销售者是资源的创造者，而拿着政府补贴的剧院，却在消耗着这些资源。
追问天哪！我也没仔细查fraising，居然是书上印错了！多谢纠错！
谢谢您的回答，但是我认为arguing不是谓语而是"they"的定语（或是"responding"的状语？反正是修饰"they"的），按照语言习惯，如果是谓语，做responding的并列成分，一般是要加and的。
另外，我给出前一句的意图就是想帮助大家句意，所以还是理解了再分析好一点吧？
是的啊，最好是原文阅读并且了解背景资料更好一点，我看有几个朋友的回答很好呢。