Vithal wrote:
Prominent business executives often play active roles in United States presidential campaigns as fundraisers or backroom strategists. But few actually seek to become president themselves. Throughout history the great majority of those who have sought to become president have been lawyers, military leaders, or full-time politicians. This is understandable, for the personality and skills that make for success in business do not make for success in politics. Business is largely hierarchical, whereas politics is coordinative; As a result, business executives tend to be uncomfortable with compromises and power sharing, which are inherent in politics.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the proposed explanation of why Business executives do not run for president?
(A) Many of the most active presidential fundraisers and backroom strategists are themselves Politicians.
(B) Military leaders are generally no more comfortable with compromises and power sharing than are business executives.
(C) Some of the skills needed to become a successful lawyer are different from some of those needed to become a successful military leader.
(D) Some former presidents have engaged in business ventures after leaving office
(E) Some hierarchically structured companies have been major financial supporters of Candidates for president.
Source: LSAT
Based on answer choice (B), we should be able to infer that the characteristic is true of military leaders in general. The answer choice does not imply that it is true for some and not for others. So, if military leaders have the same characteristic that the argument says represents the reason why business executives do not run and yet military leaders do, that would like providing the cause without the effect, undermining the argument's causal relationship - that not being comfortable with compromises and power-sharing causes business executives not to seek the position of president.
Notice that answer choice (B) is also the strongest of all the answer choices. Generally is more like "most." Whereas each of the other answer choices represent "some" statements.
Let's take a look at the incorrect answers:
(A) doesn't address the cause and effect relationship directly. Had the argument said that only business executives played a role in the fundraising and back-room strategies this would have been a stronger answer choice.
(C) is irrelevant. The argument does not preclude skill sets that fail to completely overlap.
(D) would weaken the claim that politicians don't go into business, but does not weaken that business executives do not go into politics. Additionally, this answer choice doesn't suggest any reasons for why, which is at the heart of the argument.
(E) is irrelevant. We are concerned with who runs for political office and why - not who is engaged in the fundraising.
Does that make sense? If you think of this one as a positing a cause and effect relationship, you can approach from the standard approach for weakening:
1. provide an example of an alternative cause
2. provide an example of the presumed cause without the presumed effect
3. provide an example of the presumed effect without the presumed cause
Answer choice (B) gives us the 2nd option.
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long