Dkhapllicator wrote:
The argument’s reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) takes for granted that the survival of businesses is the only important ethical concern; Nowhere is this mentioned, nor is it an assumption upon which this argument relies, so NO to this one.
(B) confuses a cause of integrity with an effect of integrity; So a solid business shows more integrity than a failing one, or opposite? This is not mentioned here.
(C) contains a key term that shifts in meaning from one sense to another; Hmm, lets see. Argument mentions integrity (moral/ethical sense), then moves to integrated (as in structural) so this is correct.
(D) overlooks the possibility that integrity is not a public-relations or management goal of some businesses Does not matter and is not mentioned.
(E) takes for granted that a condition required for the conclusion to be true necessarily makes the conclusion true The argument doesn't. It states without integrity businesses will disintegrate, but lacks in the middle of this where structural integrity is mixed up in meaning. So this is not important.
I had kept C but selected E because I read the 'integrated' and 'disintegrated' to be an analogy with survival of the company , instead of wordplay on the meaning of integrity.
If you think along those lines then E holds i.e., a company without integrity would no longer be integrated is insufficient to say that it would disintegrate. Does this make sense?
I know integrated isn't absolutely the right word but structurally broken can be an analogy for a company to not be surviving well.
Posted from my mobile device