Corporate Spokesperson: There has been much ado about the lack of glob

There has been much ado about the lack of global corporate responsibility
More than 50 international corporations this year enjoyed sales in excess of the GDP of 60% of the world’s countries.

Conclusion: Global corporates will take responsibility now.

We need to weaken the conclusion. The author is saying that since the sales of 50 corporates was more than GDP of 60% of countries, corporates will take responsibility now. But what if corporates do not accept the obligations of the state just because their sales is higher than GDP of the country? Then the corporates may not take responsibility.

A. Enjoying financial resources equal to or greater than those of the traditional sovereign state does not necessarily entail an acceptance of the obligations traditionally accepted by such a state.

Correct. If more resources than the state does not entail acceptance of the obligations accepted by the state, then the corporations may not take responsibility and hence lack of global corporate responsibility may continue.

B. Corporate revenue and influence is expected to increase in the years to come.

What will happen in years to come is irrelevant. If corporate revenue increases in future, we would hope that corporates will take even more responsibility.

C. Many corporations are among the world’s top employers.

Irrelevant

D. Many corporations are among the world’s top polluters.

Irrelevant

E. Most of the 50 corporations mentioned are expected to see significant decreases in sales as a result of a recent international recession.

Doesn't matter. Again, what happens in future is irrelevant. If corporates see decrease in revenue, GDP may decrease too due to recession. So corporates may still make more than the GDP. In any case, we are talking about the current status and the possibility of corporates taking up responsibility.

Answer (A)
_________________

Its tough to understand the prompt, please shed some light.

i'll bite.

the idea is that corporate responsibility has not been necessary/needed in the past. why, you ask? b/c it can be inferred that corporations were never in that kind of a position (of heaving enormous wealth and reach w/out any of the responsibilities of a traditional state)

- don't believe me? it's inferred directly in the passage: "corporations were in the historically unprecedented position of having substantial wealth and reach without having any of the obligations of the traditional state."
-- let's pick this apart. "C's were in the HISTORICALLY UNPRECEDENTED (meaning: never happened before in history) POSITION OF HAVING $ AND RESOURCES. This says that C's NEVER HAD that kind of reach before.

Now, as a twist, the passage says THIS WILL CHANGE. Meaning: C's will be in this position soon. Okay, they'll be in the position, so what? Does this mean C's HAVE TO adopt the same responsibilities traditional states have had to deal with in the past? This is where we get (A)

Kudos please if helpful

Can you pls explain why E is wrong..??

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850M using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

srikanth9502 why does "E" look attractive to you?

Let's break "E" down. It basically says: "(Most of the mentioned companies) are expected to see significant decreases in sales as a result of a recent international recession."

The main point to note here is: this A/C contradicts the argument ("...more than 50 international corporations this year enjoyed sales in excess of the GDP of 60% of the world’s countries."). The passage says companies did well, why is "E" saying otherwise?
- The key thing here is to pay attention to the ebb and flow of the argument. It is clear here that historically, companies are not used to having so many resources, but recently the tide has turned

Kudos please if you find this helpful

Hello Experts,

Please shed some light on this question. I am not able to understand the argument

Premise: Spokesperson says that the harm was done not because of Lack of Responsibility but because of surplus of wealth, a condition that was never witnessed in past and concludes that this will soon change. (we don't really need the next info)The spokesperson now presents the reason of a ONE-TIME surplus of wealth
GOAL: To weaken we need to show that the harm was done because of the lack of responsibility and not because of the ONE-TIME event.

A says that having surplus wealth does not compels a state to accept its obligations/responsibilities. -----> Thus, the reason of the harm done is because the state did not perform its responsibilities. Goal accomplished.

E, on the other hand, is supporting the argument saying that the surplus wealth was due to increased sales, a condition that will not occur again.
_________________

Can an expert please explain why E is wrong ?

Hi Priyanka,

Though not an expert, but I have some clue as to why option E is wrong. Hope this helps you.

So basically the argument is that TILL now much of the harm thought of is due to lack of CORPORATE GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY, but author suggests that it was mere incidental .
Now he presents his reasoning that Although the corporations were big positions till now did not oblige with the STATE ( GOVERNMENT). For example, say Amazon is a giant in India but it does not share good obligations with Indian Government. In recession, it can take a hit. But will that hit decide it's obligations with Indian government? Maybe/Maybe not.

And then author says that this would change now ( this is the conclusion). Why this would change? Because many international firms ( more than 50) enjoyed sales MORE than GDP of 60% of countries.

Do you see that there is a gap in the conclusion? The conclusion says that it will SOON change on basis of what? On basis of many international firms doing good businees in MAJORITY of the nations. Author here assumes that to do such type of business, you need to have a proper obligation. So our answer choice should play on this assumption. In other and simple words, obligation is NECESSARY for such huge sales and good position.

Option A says OBLIGATION is not necessary for achieving such wealth. This will BREAK down our condition of obligation and hence this fits perfect.

However when you say that of these 50 nations in FUTURE, MAJORITY would loose sales. This is only half of the condition presented. Now what are the reasons for this dip in sales? It could be the internal causes or anything in the light of EXPECTED RECESSION. Basically option E does not relate the obligation to dip in sales. You can take this option to either way. Either that even with obligaiton these companies had a dip in sales or you can say the government did not oblige with them. So this will have multi dimensional impact on the conclusion and thus this option is difficult to qualify as a weakener.

What I mean to say is that even with RECESSION, there could be possibility that the obligation persists. So here (in option E) we do not eliminate the possibility of neccessity of Obligation.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Rishav

Hi VeritasKarishma,

but from the prompt can we deduce that the financial resources are equal to or greater than that of the govt? do't we have to make so many assumption to reach to this conclusion?

We are given that more than 50 international corporations this year enjoyed sales in excess of the GDP of 60% of the world’s countries.
So sales of these companies was more than GDP of 60% of the countries. The entire argument is dependent on this that when the amount of resources available is this high, the corporation is bound to take the obligation that the State has.
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________