Prominent business executives often play active roles in United States

Prominent business executives often play active roles in the United States presidential campaigns as fundraisers or backroom strategists. But few actually seek to become president themselves. Throughout history, the great majority of those who have sought to become president have been lawyers, military leaders, or full-time politicians. This is understandable, for the personality and skills that make for success in business do not make for success in politics. Business is largely hierarchical, whereas politics is coordinative;
As a result, business executives tend to be uncomfortable with compromises and power-sharing, which are inherent in politics.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the proposed explanation of why Business executives do not run for president?

Argument: ...business executives tend to be uncomfortable with compromises and power-sharing, which are inherent in politics

In order to weaken the argument, we can do two things:
1) It's not the compromises and power-sharing that are stopping the business executives from running for the prez.
2) The lawyers, the military leaders, or the full-time politicians are no more comfortable than biz execs with compromises and power-sharing



(A) Many of the most active presidential fundraisers and backroom strategists are themselves, Politicians.
Does not weaken the argument.

(B) Military leaders are generally no more comfortable with compromises and power-sharing than are business executives.
In line with point 2.

(C) Some of the skills needed to become a successful lawyer are different from some of those needed to become a successful military leader.
Not even addressing biz execs.

(D) Some former presidents have engaged in business ventures after leaving office
What some politicians have done after leaving the office is OFS.

(E) Some hierarchically structured companies have been major financial supporters of Candidates for president.
OFS

Option B.

IMO: B

If true, then the premise of the conclusion fails,

I see it as Person A making a excuse not to do something because of a lame excuse, when Person B does it despite that exact reason. Basically no more for excuses.

­Sounds like you have the right idea here: the conclusion is indeed the "this is understandable" part ("It is understandable that few prominent business executives actually seek to become president themselves.").

And why is that understandable? Because "the personality and skills that make for success in business do not make for success in politics". This statement is further explained by the parts you've labeled A and B.

You could probably argue that A supports B, but that distinction isn't really necessary: A and B really go hand-in-hand in explaining why someone who excels in business might not excel in politics.

If you go into a passage thinking, "okay, step 1: put the sentences in order," you're probably being too mechanical. As long as you understand the conclusion and the basic logic behind it, there's no need to drive yourself crazy trying to put every single sentence in the "correct" logical order.­­

I hope that helps!

(B) was also in my favourite list. I declined it because it was too specific. There is no mention of "Politician" or "Lawyers". Is that not required? what do u say?

jpv, I do not think you need to look for those words, IMO 'D' is a trap because it says that former Presidents become business people and not the other way around, whereas 'B' directly attacks one of the premise proving it to be false.

I believe it is (B).

It shows the similarity between military and business executives.

It should be (B) because if military leaders can become the presidet, the why ot business leaders.

how do u refute A.

"Prominent business executives often play active roles in United States presidential campaigns as fundraisers or backroom strategists"

A defies the basic premise on which argument is based.

HI, the conclusion is few of prominent business executives seek to become president themselves.

And the premise is that the characteristics of business leaders and politician leaders are different.

In choice A, even if fundraisers are politicians, we still cannot make sure whether these politicians who are also fundraisers will run for president or not since the author talked about politicians who are not fundraisers.

Choice B is the OA, it talked about military leaders.

Based on answer choice (B), we should be able to infer that the characteristic is true of military leaders in general. The answer choice does not imply that it is true for some and not for others. So, if military leaders have the same characteristic that the argument says represents the reason why business executives do not run and yet military leaders do, that would like providing the cause without the effect, undermining the argument's causal relationship - that not being comfortable with compromises and power-sharing causes business executives not to seek the position of president.

Notice that answer choice (B) is also the strongest of all the answer choices. Generally is more like "most." Whereas each of the other answer choices represent "some" statements.

Let's take a look at the incorrect answers:

(A) doesn't address the cause and effect relationship directly. Had the argument said that only business executives played a role in the fundraising and back-room strategies this would have been a stronger answer choice.
(C) is irrelevant. The argument does not preclude skill sets that fail to completely overlap.
(D) would weaken the claim that politicians don't go into business, but does not weaken that business executives do not go into politics. Additionally, this answer choice doesn't suggest any reasons for why, which is at the heart of the argument.
(E) is irrelevant. We are concerned with who runs for political office and why - not who is engaged in the fundraising.

Does that make sense? If you think of this one as a positing a cause and effect relationship, you can approach from the standard approach for weakening:

1. provide an example of an alternative cause
2. provide an example of the presumed cause without the presumed effect
3. provide an example of the presumed effect without the presumed cause

Answer choice (B) gives us the 2nd option.

MentorTutoring VeritasKarishma

Are we doubting on validity of premise in this official q? Do we not not always take premises to be true as face value?



Why business execs do not run for president?
Given explanation that I have to weaken: business execs are uncomfortable with compromises and power sharing.
These two skills are inherent in politics.



OA places military leaders and business execs at same level or says that military leaders are less comfortable with two skills inherent to run for president.
But in premise we are already given that lawyers, military leaders, and full time politicians have above two traits. Is the assessment of traits that is making this OA correct? I need to break the link between a premise and conclusion (here doubt the explanation that business execs do not run for politics) rather than saying the premise is false.

E.g. A scores better in GMAT since his reasoning abilities are better than B. So we are gauging A and B on basis on measure of reasoning abilities though both have it.

Hi Experts KarishmaB AjiteshArun GMATNinja MartyMurray GMATNinjaTwo
I find it tough to locate the core here. Please help me out! Below is my understanding:

I initially thought that below should be the core.

Conclusion: This is understandable(that few actually seek to become president themselves): D
Intermediate conclusion: for the personality and skills that make for success in business do not make for success in politics : C


But, i cant see how the below part is related to the above CORE:
''Business is largely hierarchical, whereas politics is coordinative(A) --->business executives tend to be uncomfortable with compromises and power sharing, which are inherent in politics(B)''

I know my understanding is not correct but i think, chain of arguments seems to go from A --> B --> C --> D