GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 03 Apr 2020, 18:59

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Businesses, especially those that cannot feasibly differentiate their

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 64

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2017, 18:35
7
25
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

38% (03:14) correct 62% (03:01) wrong based on 398 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

_________________
Please visit my corners of the web:
http://www.RonPurewal.com
__

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete fare domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
__

Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
—Yves Saint-Laurent
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 64

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 11:06
6
1

__

First, find the task itself: This problem deals with weakening an argument.

As with any other negative phrasing (NOT, EXCEPT, LEAST, etc), it’s best to ‘translate’ the question into a form that expresses what we actually want.
Here there should be 4 answer choices that weaken the argument and 1 that doesn’t; we want the option that doesn’t weaken the argument.
In other words:
• The correct answer could be irrelevant to the argument.
• It could also strengthen the argument.

The main point of the argument is that “no business can survive in the long run unless all of its significant operations are socially responsible”. The following statements (after this conclusion) form the premises of the argument: essentially, if a firm is too irresponsible, then the public will turn against it, causing it to lose its viability in the market.

A statement could weaken this argument by showing that socially irresponsible businesses CAN survive in the long term—or by invalidating or calling into question the reasoning in the current argument.

Let’s look at the choices one by one:

A/
The argument posits that a socially irresponsible firm “will eventually run afoul of public opinion”. For this to occur, though, the firm’s irresponsible conduct needs public exposure. If this choice is true, then, ironically, the more consistently irresponsible a firm’s behavior is, the less likely the public will be to actually notice it.
This casts doubt on the idea that such firms will inevitably “run afoul of public opinion”, thereby weakening the argument.

B/
Standardized materials”, by definition, do not vary significantly from one manufacturer to another. Thus, according to the opening sentence, the firms that produce these materials “cannot feasibly differentiate their products or functions from those of rival firms” and so will be especially likely to engage in the sort of misconduct that the argument discusses.
The argument depends on the idea that the public, upon learning that a firm has been guilty of consistent (and/or flagrant) social irresponsibility, will turn against that firm and “act to reduce its influence”. If this answer choice is true, though, most people realize that, by taking any significant action against such a firm, they would be lowering their own standard of living. Clearly, few people would put their own standard of living at risk for the sake of the abstract principle of social responsibility. This choice thus weakens the argument, as the chain of events in the last two sentences is very unlikely to occur if it is true.

C/
The argument fundamentally depends not only on whether a firm’s conduct actually is socially irresponsible, but also on whether the surrounding society judges it as such.
If this statement is true, then, by using “sufficiently shrewd and pervasive marketing”, even firms that consistently misbehave could prevent society from correctly judging their actions as socially irresponsible. In that case, the public would not take the actions described in the argument’s last two sentences, and so these firms could escape the consequences that the argument describes as inevitable.

D/
In simpler terms, this choice says that the worst offenders—that is, the LEAST socially responsible firms—were, for the most part, founded specifically to be viable in the short term only. In other words, these firms were never intended to last in the long run.
The mechanism in the argument (public disapproval) is unaffected by these intentions, so this choice has no effect on the reasoning of the argument. Furthermore, this choice actually supports the conclusion of the argument, by giving another reason why socially irresponsible firms will NOT last beyond the short term.

E/
The argument depends on the idea that the public will “inevitably” act against a firm that it has judged socially irresponsible. In other words, the argument essentially declares that a public judgment of social irresponsibility, once entrenched, is permanent and irreversible.
According to this choice, though, such judgments can be reversed (or can simply ‘expire’ or be forgotten), at least in the case of a firm that re-brands itself dramatically enough. If this is possible, then the consequences described at the end of the argument are no longer “inevitable” and so the argument is called into question.

_________________
Please visit my corners of the web:
http://www.RonPurewal.com
__

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete fare domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
__

Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
—Yves Saint-Laurent
##### General Discussion
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 8301

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2017, 19:09
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.

Crux of para :-
Businesses acting unethically will be effected in long run due to NEGATIVE public opinion they generate.

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.
It basically tells us that the company which is working unethically throughout is less likely to be punished than the company which has a high reputation and does something wrong... WEAKENS

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.
Here it tells us that the ethics may not be priority BUT the necessity of things these companies produce. WEAKENS

C. Sufficiently shrewd and pervasive marketing can erode society’s ability to detect socially irresponsible corporate conduct.
If the public is not able to differentiate, they may not be able to form an opinion.... WEAKENS

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.
It does tell us that these firms do not expect long term viability so in a way the opinion will not effect them. But the catch word is MOST. So it just specifies the MoST blatant violaters. What about the OTHERS. They are maximum and they may be looking for long-term benefits and nothing talks of public opinion effect on these.
So Does not so anything to argument...... ANS

E. Through aggressive public-relations campaigns and radical rebranding, firms can usually distance themselves from previous public judgments.
If the companies can change the perception then the effect of public opinion will change with perception.... WEAKENS

D

__

Enjoy!
I'll return for discussion in the next day or two.
_________________
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 64

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2017, 19:20

Your analysis of A/B/C/E seems accurate, for the most part (although there are some bits and pieces of your phrasing that I'm having some trouble understanding).

As for choice D—
Don't forget... the main point of this argument is NOT directly about the impact of public opinion. (What IS the main point? Don't lose your focus on this once you've established it!)
_________________
Please visit my corners of the web:
http://www.RonPurewal.com
__

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete fare domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
__

Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
—Yves Saint-Laurent
Intern
Joined: 30 Mar 2016
Posts: 36

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2017, 20:33
1
RonPurewal wrote:
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

Hi Ron,

Glad to know you're back on gmatclub

Argument: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is likely to affect public judgments.

Weaken:

_What if other factors actually influence public judgments.

_What if THIRD THING could affect BOTH CSR and public judgments.

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.

It is the reputation of a firm, NOT CSR, that affects public judgments --> WEAKEN

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.

It is standard of living, NOT CSR, which is at risk of hindrance or interruption, that affects public judgments --> WEAKEN

C. Sufficiently shrewd and pervasive marketing can erode society’s ability to detect socially irresponsible corporate conduct.

It is marketing that affects BOTH CSR and public judgments --> WEAKEN

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.

CORRECT: Short-term profit oriented firms known NOT to have CSR have nothing to do with the argument.

E. Through aggressive public-relations campaigns and radical rebranding, firms can usually distance themselves from previous public judgments.

It is public-relations campaigns and radical rebranding, NOT CSR, that affect public judgments --> WEAKEN

Thank you for your question and +kudos
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 64

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2017, 15:49
2
SISDIT wrote:
Glad to know you're back on gmatclub

^^ Ahah thanks. I don't know if "back" is the right word (since I had a lifetime total of 2 posts here before this week), but, I'll take compliments where I get 'em.

__

In any case... You've identified the main point incorrectly.
The main point of the argument is actually THIS: " no business can survive in the long run unless all of its significant operations are socially responsible"

If this isn't clear, then, re-structure the argument as "bla bla bla bla bla bla; THEREFORE, (conclusion)". (If you're not quite sure which statement is the ultimate point of an argument, this is a useful test in general.)
By the way, this test—along with everything else relating to the 'function' of statements—will be MUCH easier if you can mentally translate the words into actual dialogue. If you can do that, you should be able to harness the same natural intuition that you use in just about all conversations.

in any case, these are the final 2 steps of the logic here, in the correct order:
... so, 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. Therefore, no business can survive long-term unless it practices "CSR".

__
_________________
Please visit my corners of the web:
http://www.RonPurewal.com
__

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete fare domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
__

Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
—Yves Saint-Laurent
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 64

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2017, 15:55
1
In fact, even if you just look at that statement ALL BY ITSELF, you can still get the sense that it's very likely to be a conclusion, and very UNlikely to be a premise—IF you can imagine it as a real piece of everyday conversation.

Just look at it:
No business can survive long-term unless all its operations are socially responsible.

If you heard somebody SAY this statement... what would you think was going on?
(NOT "RULES"!!!
Just "hear" someone SAYING this in your imagination, and use your normal commonsense instincts as much as possible)

You would almost certainly think something like...
"Well, that's an awfully ambitious statement... What's their reasoning behind that?

Furthermore, you would probably NOT expect the speaker to keep going with "...therefore, xxxx" from here—since this is already such a sweeping, general statement.

If you do have these instincts, then, both are on point.

__

Considering you've identified the point incorrectly, you should start this problem from scratch.

(Your current solution looks like the kind of thing someone would produce after having checked the OA. In other words... "Okay I know it's D, so... I'm going to try to build a path to D."
If that ••is•• what you did... yeah, don't do that.)

Try it again.
_________________
Please visit my corners of the web:
http://www.RonPurewal.com
__

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete fare domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
__

Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
—Yves Saint-Laurent
Intern
Joined: 21 Oct 2013
Posts: 12
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
Schools: Haas EWMBA '21
GPA: 3.9
WE: Research (Consumer Electronics)

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2017, 11:15
I have doubts between statement B and D
A, C and E can be easily removed as they completely weaken the argument.

However B and D weaken it to a varying degree.
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.
Does this statement mean that the Public will ignore companies that produce standardized materials even if they do not practice CSR?
This would only imply that certain companies are ignored while the others are still scrutinized.

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.
Here, all it says is that only the companies that look to generate short-term profit mostly do not practice CSR. But other companies that look for long term profits, do not violate CSR to a greater extent.

How can i differentiate between the two? Is my understanding of the statement incorrect?
Intern
Joined: 03 Sep 2014
Posts: 3
Location: United States
Schools: Tuck '17
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q49 V30

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 01:17
Hi Ron,

Could you please provide a detailed explanation for this question. I am having troubles understanding this question.

Regards,
Arun

RonPurewal wrote:
In fact, even if you just look at that statement ALL BY ITSELF, you can still get the sense that it's very likely to be a conclusion, and very UNlikely to be a premise—IF you can imagine it as a real piece of everyday conversation.

Just look at it:
No business can survive long-term unless all its operations are socially responsible.

If you heard somebody SAY this statement... what would you think was going on?
(NOT "RULES"!!!
Just "hear" someone SAYING this in your imagination, and use your normal commonsense instincts as much as possible)

You would almost certainly think something like...
"Well, that's an awfully ambitious statement... What's their reasoning behind that?

Furthermore, you would probably NOT expect the speaker to keep going with "...therefore, xxxx" from here—since this is already such a sweeping, general statement.

If you do have these instincts, then, both are on point.

__

Considering you've identified the point incorrectly, you should start this problem from scratch.

(Your current solution looks like the kind of thing someone would produce after having checked the OA. In other words... "Okay I know it's D, so... I'm going to try to build a path to D."
If that ••is•• what you did... yeah, don't do that.)

Try it again.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 472
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 09:45
My 2 cents:

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.

This option affects the stem (and conclusion) by creating a distinction between two types of company, particularly one would be less affected than the other. We can say that this could be slightly favourable for the 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.

So people have a motive to let such companies operate. And if those companies decide to act irresponsibly, then it would be favourable for most people to not act upon it. Weakens.

C. Sufficiently shrewd and pervasive marketing can erode society’s ability to detect socially irresponsible corporate conduct.

If society is not able to detect such conducts, then real offenders (companies acting irresponsibly) can pass through.

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.

No affect on the argument. The motive is not important but the effects of acting irresponsibly is.

E. Through aggressive public-relations campaigns and radical rebranding, firms can usually distance themselves from previous public judgments.

This directly weakens the argument by saying that things can be reversed.
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 619
Location: India

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 20:10
I am not sure about D . The gist of the argument is : If a company is not socially responsible it will become irrelevant in the long run. In other words if the companies want to survive in the long run, they should be socially responsible.

But according to D, the companies that do show the most disregard for social responsibility, do not care for long term relevance.

At a higher level, this weakens the author's argument for social responsibility. More specifically it weakens the premise of the argument.
_________________
Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Magical Logicians

Holistic and Holy Approach
Intern
Status: DA VERBAL OG
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Posts: 17
Location: United States

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 21:02
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
I am not sure about D . The gist of the argument is : If a company is not socially responsible it will become irrelevant in the long run. In other words if the companies want to survive in the long run, they should be socially responsible.

But according to D, the companies that do show the most disregard for social responsibility, do not care for long term relevance.

At a higher level, this weakens the author's argument for social responsibility. More specifically it weakens the premise of the argument.

But...the author's argument is not that companies should be socially responsible in general. It's that companies should be socially responsible if they want to survive in the long run.

D says that companies with the most blatant disregard for social responsibility actually don't care about surviving in the long run -- they're going to fail, because that was the plan all along. So, if the argument is that companies that are not socially responsible will fail in the long run, and companies that are specifically designed to be (a) not socially responsible and (b) fail in the long run end up failing in the long run...that supports the argument.

An analogy: If I say "People who eat a lot of ice cream inevitably get stomach aches," and you say "Oh yeah? Well I actually WANT a stomach ache, so I'm going to eat a ton of ice cream, and get one, and there's nothing you can do about it, haha!" your statement isn't weakening my argument. My argument was not that people shouldn't eat a lot of ice cream, or even that people shouldn't attempt to get stomach aches; it was that people who eat too much ice cream get stomach aches. If you eat a lot of ice cream and you get a stomach ache, you're totally proving me right -- a stomach ache is no more or less of a stomach ache because you wanted it to happen.

In this problem, we're saying that companies who are not socially responsible will fail in the long term. In option D, we're saying, some of these companies actually want to fail. Well, failing on purpose is still failing (just...on purpose!) At the end of the day, was this company not socially responsible? Yes. Did it fail in the long run? Yes. Does that support the argument that companies that are not socially responsible will fail in the long run? Yep!
_________________
★ writer ★

married to ron
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 619
Location: India

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 21:21
SarahPurewal wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
I am not sure about D . The gist of the argument is : If a company is not socially responsible it will become irrelevant in the long run. In other words if the companies want to survive in the long run, they should be socially responsible.

But according to D, the companies that do show the most disregard for social responsibility, do not care for long term relevance.

At a higher level, this weakens the author's argument for social responsibility. More specifically it weakens the premise of the argument.

But...the author's argument is not that companies should be socially responsible in general. It's that companies should be socially responsible if they want to survive in the long run.

D says that companies with the most blatant disregard for social responsibility actually don't care about surviving in the long run -- they're going to fail, because that was the plan all along. So, if the argument is that companies that are not socially responsible will fail in the long run, and companies that are specifically designed to be (a) not socially responsible and (b) fail in the long run end up failing in the long run...that supports the argument.

An analogy: If I say "People who eat a lot of ice cream inevitably get stomach aches," and you say "Oh yeah? Well I actually WANT a stomach ache, so I'm going to eat a ton of ice cream, and get one, and there's nothing you can do about it, haha!" your statement isn't weakening my argument. My argument was not that people shouldn't eat a lot of ice cream, or even that people shouldn't attempt to get stomach aches; it was that people who eat too much ice cream get stomach aches. If you eat a lot of ice cream and you get a stomach ache, you're totally proving me right -- a stomach ache is no more or less of a stomach ache because you wanted it to happen.

In this problem, we're saying that companies who are not socially responsible will fail in the long term. In option D, we're saying, some of these companies actually want to fail. Well, failing on purpose is still failing (just...on purpose!) At the end of the day, was this company not socially responsible? Yes. Did it fail in the long run? Yes. Does that support the argument that companies that are not socially responsible will fail in the long run? Yep!

In line with your argument , let me state the premise and the conclusion

Premise: Companies want to survive in the long run

Conclusion: They need to be socially responsible.

If the above premise is not right, let me know the premise.

The conclusion of the argument is correct given the premise and the assumption. But D questions the correctness of the premise and therefore the validity of the argument. That is the point I am raising.
_________________
Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Magical Logicians

Holistic and Holy Approach
Intern
Status: DA VERBAL OG
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Posts: 17
Location: United States

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 21:52
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
In line with your argument , let me state the premise and the conclusion

Premise: Companies want to survive in the long run

Conclusion: They need to be socially responsible.

If the above premise is not right, let me know the premise.

The conclusion of the argument is correct given the premise and the assumption. But D questions the correctness of the premise and therefore the validity of the argument. That is the point I am raising.

Ah, I see where you're coming from.

This is the conclusion, directly from the text: no business can survive in the long run unless all of its significant operations are socially responsible

The premises come afterward: 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.

I'll break it down further:

(Premise 1) Socially irresponsible companies will eventually piss off the public;
(Premise 2) The pissed-off public will retaliate and their retaliation will cause these companies to fail;
(Conclusion) THEREFORE...socially irresponsible companies will fail in the long run.
_________________
★ writer ★

married to ron
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 619
Location: India

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 22:19
SarahPurewal wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
In line with your argument , let me state the premise and the conclusion

Premise: Companies want to survive in the long run

Conclusion: They need to be socially responsible.

If the above premise is not right, let me know the premise.

The conclusion of the argument is correct given the premise and the assumption. But D questions the correctness of the premise and therefore the validity of the argument. That is the point I am raising.

Ah, I see where you're coming from.

This is the conclusion, directly from the text: no business can survive in the long run unless all of its significant operations are socially responsible

The premises come afterward: 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.

I'll break it down further:

(Premise 1) Socially irresponsible companies will eventually piss off the public;
(Premise 2) The pissed-off public will retaliate and their retaliation will cause these companies to fail;
(Conclusion) THEREFORE...socially irresponsible companies will fail in the long run.

Good argument. But the point I raised still remains. The author assumes that long term survival is important and that the companies become irrelevant in the long term if they are irresponsible. But the companies actually do not care for survival in the long run. So the force of the argument is lost if one goes deeper into the intent of the author.
_________________
Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Magical Logicians

Holistic and Holy Approach
Intern
Status: DA VERBAL OG
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Posts: 17
Location: United States

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 22:33
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
The author assumes that long term survival is important

The author doesn't assign value -- good or bad -- to long-term survival. He/she (okay, he, we know who wrote the question) merely states that companies who participate in socially irresponsible behavior will not be able to survive in the long run. This isn't a bad thing...or a good thing...it's just...a thing.
_________________
★ writer ★

married to ron
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 619
Location: India

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 22:49
I agree your argument is technically correct.

Consider this statement:

"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. "

The above sentence with the usage of the word "responsible" suggests that the author considers being socially responsible and consequently being able to survive in the long run, favorably. Words in isolation alone may not indicate the intent sometimes.
_________________
Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Magical Logicians

Holistic and Holy Approach
Intern
Status: DA VERBAL OG
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Posts: 17
Location: United States

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 23:19
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
I agree your argument is technically correct.

Consider this statement:

"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. "

The above sentence with the usage of the word "responsible" suggests that the author considers being socially responsible and consequently being able to survive in the long run, favorably. Words in isolation alone may not indicate the intent sometimes.

Two things:

First, consider the sentence that directly precedes this one; where the author states, "conduct judged irresponsible by the surrounding society." It is now clear that the author is, in fact, not assigning personal value to this behavior, but is simply defining said behavior in the context of how it is perceived by "the surrounding society."

Second, "socially responsible" is a phrase -- you can't just pluck "responsible" from that phrase and call it morally loaded. (In fact, "social responsibility" is an actual, defined concept, but even if you didn't know that before you read this question, it's pretty clear that "socially responsible" is a phrase.)

(Also, responsible != automatically a good thing. In many cases, "responsible" is an epithet. See: Youths of every era. Maybe the author is a punk. )
_________________
★ writer ★

married to ron
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 619
Location: India

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 23:25
I still do not agree. Any way thanks for your time.
_________________
Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Magical Logicians

Holistic and Holy Approach
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 15 Nov 2013
Posts: 64

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2017, 23:26
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
The above sentence with the usage of the word "responsible" suggests that the author considers being socially responsible and consequently being able to survive in the long run, favorably. Words in isolation alone may not indicate the intent sometimes.

The words will always mean what they say, and they will always say what they mean. The integrity of the exam depends utterly on this.

Furthermore, no argument will EVER depend on the author's personal opinions (unless those opinions are somehow explicitly incorporated into the logic of the argument).
_________________
Please visit my corners of the web:
http://www.RonPurewal.com
__

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete fare domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
__

Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
—Yves Saint-Laurent
Re: Businesses, especially those that cannot feasibly differentiate their   [#permalink] 17 Jul 2017, 23:26

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 33 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by