Bunuel
Proponents of the theory of social utilitarianism hold that the value of human capital should bear an inherent relation to its social utility. Although maximizing the value of human capital is both morally defensible and economically praiseworthy, the theory of social utilitarianism has severe practical limitations. If the price of labor were to become a measure of social utility and not of scarcity, the labor market would suffer significant distortions that may well reduce, and not increase, the current level of human capital.
The argument proceeds by
(A) Questioning a proposed strategy by showing that, if implemented, such a strategy could compromise the very objectives it is trying to achieve.
(B) Criticizing a course of action by showing that, even if morally defensible, the end result does not always justify the means necessary to achieve it.
(C) Criticizing a strategy by suggesting that there is an alternative way of achieving its proposed advantages without risking a number of serious disadvantages.
(D) Conceding that a social policy may have certain ethical advantages that are ultimately outweighed by the impossibility of putting such a policy into effect.
(E) Establishing that undesirable consequences result from the adoption of a social policy whose goal is antithetical to the central tenets of a free market economy.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
As usual, we begin by analyzing the structure of the problem:
Premise: Proponents of the theory of social utilitarianism hold that the value of human capital should bear an inherent relation to its social utility.
Counterpremise: Although maximizing the value of human capital is both morally defensible and economically praiseworthy,
Premise: If the price of labor were to become a measure of social utility and not of scarcity, the labor market would suffer significant distortions that may well reduce, and not increase, the current level of human capital.
Conclusion: The theory of social utilitarianism has severe practical limitations.
The argument begins with the classic device, “Proponents...hold that...” As expected, the author argues that the beliefs of these individuals are incorrect, although not before first offering up a counter-premise that does not undermine his argument. The last half of the argument is an example that supports the conclusion. Although the argument is challenging to understand, the conclusion seems reasonable.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. Social utilitarianism is a theory (or strategy), and the author uses an example to show that if it were implemented, there could be adverse results.
Answer choice (B): This is a Half Right, Half Wrong answer. The argument does criticize a course of action. But, the argument does not use an “ends do not justify the means” approach in doing so.
Answer choice (C): The author does not suggest any alternatives, and thus this answer can be ruled out immediately.
Answer choice (D): The author makes no concessions, just criticisms, and so this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): There is no indication that the author believes that social utilitarianism is antithetical to the central tenets of the free market, just that if implemented, social utilitarianism could result in negative consequences.
Note that this stimulus difficult to read, but eliminating answers is actually not that challenging because each incorrect answer contains an element that almost immediately takes the answer out of consideration.