jade3 wrote:
Speaker: Contemporary business firms need to recognize that avoiding social responsibility leads to the gradual erosion of power. This is Davis and Blomstrom’s Iron Law of Responsibility: “In the long run, those who do not use power in a manner which society considers responsible will tend to lose it.” The law’s application to human institutions certainly stands confirmed by history. Though the “long run” may require decades or even centuries in some instances, society ultimately acts to reduce power when society thinks it is not being used responsibly. Therefore, a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the speaker’s argument?
(A) Government institutions are as subject to the Iron Law of Responsibility as business institutions.
(B) Public relations programs can cause society to consider an institution socially responsible even when it is not.
(C) The power of some institutions erodes more slowly than the power of others, whether they are socially responsible or not.
(D) Since no institution is eternal, every business will eventually fail.
(E) Some businesses that have used power in socially responsible ways have lost it.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
This problem is similar in form to the carpet market problem. The conclusion appears at the end and is conditional in nature: “a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can, must act responsibly.” This relationship can be diagrammed as: WRP = business wishes to retain power as long as possible, AR = act responsibly. WRPAR. Hopefully, you identified this conclusion as conditional when you read the stimulus. As you read the question stem, you should have immediately pre-phrased an answer that would allow the sufficient condition to occur without the necessary condition, namely that a business that wishes to retain power does not necessarily have to act responsibly. Let us examine the answer choices with this idea in mind:
Answer choice (A): Because this answer addresses government institutions, this cannot hurt the conclusion, which is about businesses. If anything, this may slightly support the argument. In the middle of the stimulus, the Speaker mentions that “The law’s application to human institutions certainly stands confirmed by history.” This answer affirms that statement by adding governments to the named list of human institutions.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. If a public relations program can cause society to think an institution is socially responsible even when it is not, then an institution that wishes to retain power could act irresponsibly and then get a public relations firm to cover up the activities. In this way, the institution could wish to retain power but not act responsibly. Since this scenario allows the sufficient condition to occur without the necessary, this weakens the argument.
Answer choice (C): Many students hold this answer choice as a Contender. The answer is incorrect because the stimulus contemplates varying rates of power retention, especially between socially responsible and non-socially responsible institutions. If you read this answer thinking that the stimulus indicated socially responsible institutions do not lose power if socially responsible, then you made a quasi-Mistaken Reversal of the stimulus. There is never a presumption in the argument that power can be held indefinitely. If there were, this answer would be much more attractive.
Answer choice (D): The conclusion is clear in saying, “a business that wishes to retain power as long as it can...” The italicized phrase allows for the idea that businesses will eventually lose power and ultimately fail. Thus, this answer does not hurt the argument.
Answer choice (E): This is another attractive answer, and one that lured in many test takers. The answer states that even though some businesses acted responsibly (AR), they did not retain power (RP). If this difference between retaining power and wishing to retain power (WRP) is ignored, then this answer can be seen as attacking the Mistaken Reversal of the conclusion.
As you learned from the discussion of answer choice (C) of the carpet market question, attacking the Mistaken Reversal of the conclusion does not hurt the conclusion. However, this answer is attractive because not only does it address elements of the conclusion, it also appears as the final answer choice. A test taker who did not like any of the earlier answers would find this answer quite attractive.
close
13 Nov 2009, 00:04
39%
(02:19)
wrong 
