Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
13 Jul 2017, 19:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
38% (03:08) correct
62%
(03:03)
wrong
based on 541
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
__
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.
17 Jul 2017, 12:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Here's an answer key.
__
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.
The correct answer is D.
__
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.
The correct answer is D.
General Discussion
13 Jul 2017, 20:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
) 
