Businesses, especially those that cannot feasibly differentiate their

Here's a new challenge problem, for your edification and enjoyment. I'll be posting these once or twice weekly.

__

Businesses, especially those that cannot feasibly differentiate their products or functions from those of rival firms, often gain immediate advantages through conduct judged irresponsible by the surrounding society. As lucrative as such strategies might be in the short term, however, no business can survive in the long run unless all of its significant operations are socially responsible. Any firm whose irresponsible conduct goes on for long enough, or is sufficiently blatant, will eventually run afoul of public opinion. All societies act to curtail the power of those they judge to have wielded it irresponsibly; thus, once public sentiment has turned against a firm, the public itself will inevitably act to reduce that firm’s influence—plunging it eventually into irrelevance and, in turn, bankruptcy.

Each of the following considerations, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT

A. Misbehavior from a firm with an excellent reputation for social responsibility, because of its shock value, is much more likely to be publicly exposed than is similar misconduct on the part of a less reputable firm.
B. Most people are aware that their standard of living can be maintained only if certain firms, particularly those that produce standardized materials such as steel, are able to operate without hindrance or interruption.
C. Sufficiently shrewd and pervasive marketing can erode society’s ability to detect socially irresponsible corporate conduct.
D. The most blatant disregard for social responsibility is typically seen from firms that were founded specifically to generate short-term profits, with no expectation of long-term viability.
E. Through aggressive public-relations campaigns and radical rebranding, firms can usually distance themselves from previous public judgments.


__

Enjoy!
I'll return for discussion in the next day or two.

--R

Businesses, especially those that cannot feasibly differentiate their products or functions from those of rival firms, often gain immediate advantages through conduct judged irresponsible by the surrounding society. As lucrative as such strategies might be in the short term, however, no business can survive in the long run unless all of its significant operations are socially responsible. Any firm whose irresponsible conduct goes on for long enough, or is sufficiently blatant, will eventually run afoul of public opinion. All societies act to curtail the power of those they judge to have wielded it irresponsibly;thus, once public sentiment has turned against a firm, the public itself will inevitably act to reduce that firm’s influence—plunging it eventually into irrelevance and, in turn, bankruptcy.

Each of the following considerations, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT

A. Misbehavior from a firm with an excellent reputation for social responsibility, because of its shock value, is much more likely to be publicly exposed than is similar misconduct on the part of a less reputable firm.
B. Most people are aware that their standard of living can be maintained only if certain firms, particularly those that produce standardized materials such as steel, are able to operate without hindrance or interruption.
C. Sufficiently shrewd and pervasive marketing can erode society’s ability to detect socially irresponsible corporate conduct.
D. The most blatant disregard for social responsibility is typically seen from firms that were founded specifically to generate short-term profits, with no expectation of long-term viability.
E. Through aggressive public-relations campaigns and radical rebranding, firms can usually distance themselves from previous public judgments.



Hello Ron,

Even after going through the OE, I have a doubt regarding option "A". I selected option A because it distinguishes between a big firm and a less known firm. Further it states that big firm will ultimately be taken aback by the public if their irresponsible behaviour comes in front of the public. How is this weakening the conclusion.

My thought: The conclusion is very generic, in that it states that for a firm to last long it should be responsible, else public will come into picture.

I think both the option and conclusion are in-line with each other.

Since the OA=D, i must be making a mistake somewhere. Please throw some light on the same.

Regards

Here's where you may be making the mistake: (A) doesn't distinguish between big/well-known companies and small/lesser-known companies, it distinguishes between KNOWN socially responsible companies and KNOWN socially irresponsible companies. --"The comparison is between well known and lesser known firms and not known responsible and known irresponsible firms."

Now, let's take a look at the argument: "No business can survive in the long run unless all of its significant operations are socially responsible." This argument is based on the premise that businesses that are socially irresponsible will run afoul of the public opinion.

In (A), we see that businesses who ARE socially responsible are more likely to have any misconduct publicly exposed than businesses that ARE NOT socially responsible --"The comparison is between well known and lesser known firms". In other words, if a business IS socially responsible and does something bad, that's big news. If a business IS NOT socially responsible and does something bad...eh. People won't even care. Well, in order for a business to run afoul of the public opinion, it has to, um, have the public opinion in the first place. So this weakens the argument, because it suggests that socially irresponsible businesses won't necessarily fail thanks to public opinion.