gmatbull wrote:
Editorial: “Spam,” or unsolicited commercial email, exists only because a significant number of people buy the
advertised products. A response by just one recipient out of every thousand receiving a spam message makes spam
profitable enough to encourage certain businesses to send more. But any benefits the few respondents receive from
the purchased products are surely outweighed by the nuisance that spam creates for the vast number of
uninterested recipients. Therefore, it is socially irresponsible to buy anything advertised through spam.
Which of the following, if assumed, would enable the conclusion of the editorial’s argument to be properly drawn?
A. Doing anything that encourages a person or organization to act in a way that creates a nuisance for many more people
than it benefits is socially irresponsible.
B. Any socially irresponsible action creates a nuisance for at least some other people.
C. At least some socially irresponsible actions create a nuisance for a vast number of people while benefiting few if any people.
D. It is socially irresponsible for a business to send spam to a vast number of uninterested recipients in order to reach only a
few interested recipients.
E. When deciding whether to purchase an advertised product, one should consider whether the benefits one will receive from
the product outweigh the nuisance the advertising creates for other people.
OA only after discusions.
The questions asks us to find the assumption behind the conclusion of the author. So, the first step is to find out the conclusion and the premises:
Conclusion: it is socially irresponsible to buy anything advertised through spam
Premise: Benefit of buyers from the purchase < nuisance for uninterested recipients due to the purchase (how a purchase leads to nuisance to others is explained in the first two statements)
Now, let's go over options one by one:
A. Doing anything that encourages a person or organization to act in a way that creates a nuisance for many more people
than it benefits is socially irresponsible. -
the premise says that the benefit due to purchases through spams is less than nuisance to others and the conclusion says that it is socially irresponsible to buy anything advertised through spam. An assumption is inbuilt about the meaning of social irresponsibility. This option defined what is socially irresponsible and thus connects the initial premise with the conclusion. Thus, this appears to be correct.B. Any socially irresponsible action creates a nuisance for at least some other people. -
comparing with the conclusion, we can see that this option is completely off track.C. At least some socially irresponsible actions create a nuisance for a vast number of people while benefiting few if any people. -
Doesn't help in explaining the conclusion.D. It is socially irresponsible for a business to send spam to a vast number of uninterested recipients in order to reach only a
few interested recipients. -
The conclusion is saying that it is socially irresponsible to buy anything advertised through spam and this options says some other thing to be socially irresponsible. Thus, does not help explain the conclusion.E. When deciding whether to purchase an advertised product, one should consider whether the benefits one will receive from
the product outweigh the nuisance the advertising creates for other people. -
If I don't consider these, would I be called socially irresponsible? May be or may not be. We don't know what socially irresponsible means here. Thus, this option does not help us explain the conclusion, which talks about socially irresponsible behavior.Based on the above understanding, option A is the correct choice.
Cheers,
CJ
_________________
If this post is helpful, think of giving KUDOS.