gmat6nplus1
Criminologist: The main purpose of most criminal organizations is to generate profits. The ongoing revolutions in biotechnology and information technology promise to generate enormous profits. Therefore, criminal organizations will undoubtedly try to become increasingly involved in these areas.
The conclusion of the criminologist's argument is properly inferred if which one of the followings is assumed?
(A) If an organization tries to become increasingly involved in areas that promise to generate enormous profits, then the main purpose of that organization is to generate profits.
(B) At least some criminal organizations are or will at some point become aware that the ongoing revolutions in biotechnology and information technology promise to generate enormous profits.
(C) Criminal organizations are already heavily involved in every activity that promises to generate enormous profits.
(D) Any organization whose main purpose is to generate profits will try to become increasingly involved in any technological revolution that promises to generate enormous profits.
(E) Most criminal organizations are willing to become involved in legal activities if those activities are sufficiently profitable.
My question: (Don not read if you want to attempt this one)
D was a pretty appealing choice, I ended up picking B. Isn't the word "any" on D delineating a too broad scope? we are talking about criminal organizations. Thanks in advance.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
This argument confuses a possible source of profits with the
only source of profits.
- Premise 1: Tony Soprano wants money.
- Premise 2: Biotech and IT are good ways to get money.
- Conclusion: Tony Soprano will go into biotech and IT.
That’s just ridiculous. Tony Soprano is good at stealing, drug dealing, loan sharking, illegal gambling, and busting kneecaps. He doesn’t know anything about curing cancer or computers. Yes, he is going to pursue money. But that doesn’t mean he has to pursue
every possible source of money.
The question asks us to identify a sufficient condition, and our task is to make this horrible argument make sense. The best way to do that is to reverse my last statement in the previous paragraph. If
anyone who pursues money will pursue
all sources of money, then Tony Soprano, who pursues money, will have to pursue all sources of money, including IT and biotech. So I’m looking for, “Anyone who pursues money will pursue all sources of money,” or even something broader than that, like, “Anyone who pursues anything will pursue everything.” When we’re looking for a sufficient condition, it’s impossible for the answer to be too strong or too broad.
A) If this it were true, it wouldn’t force Tony into biotech or IT. So this isn’t the answer.
B) “Awareness” wouldn’t force Tony into biotech either. Nope.
C) If they’re already involved in every area that promises “enormous” profits, then why would they expand? This isn’t it.
D) There we go. This basically says, “If you want money at all, you’ll pursue every source of money.” If this were true, then Tony would have to put on his lab coat. This is the answer.
E) Meh, we already have D, so we shouldn’t spend much time discarding this one. Would it force Tony into the sciences? No.
So D is our answer.