Speaker: Contemporary business firms need to recognize that avoiding

Question

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.

pqhai · Accepted Answer

Hi anilvb. Both D and E are wrong.

Here is my explanation.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Recommendation: Avoiding social responsibility leads to the gradual erosion of power. 
Example: This is Davis and Blomstrom’s Iron Law of Responsibility: “In the long run…..”  To support the recommendation
 Conclusion:  a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly.

Assumption:  There is no other ways to demonstrate socially responsible except “act responsibly” (defender assumption).

STRATEGY TO WEAKEN AN ARGUMENT: 
 
In order to weaken the speaker’s argument, we have two approaches.
 (1)  Direct method:  Attack the conclusion directly:  You can show a business can retain its power without acting responsibly. (Just for easy questions)
 (2)  Indirect method:  Attack the assumption:  You can show the assumption is not strong. For example, if you can find a way other than “act responsibly” to demonstrate socially responsible, the conclusion is weaken. ( The theory behind this strategy is that the assumption must be true for a conclusion to be true ).
 
  ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

(A)  Government  institutions are as subject to the Iron Law of Responsibility as business institutions.
 Wrong.  Out of scope.

(B) Public relations programs can cause society to consider an institution socially responsible even when it is not.
  Correct.   B clearly shows that the assumption is not strong. An institution (a sub-set is a business) can find a way other than “act responsibly” to demonstrate its socially responsible. A public relation program is an example. Hence, B wekens a conclusion.
 
(C) The power of some institutions erodes more slowly than the power of others, whether they are socially responsible or not. 
 Wrong.  Out of scope. We  do not talk about the “speed” of power erosion .

(D) Since no institution is eternal, every business will eventually fail.
 Wrong.  Out of scope.  “fail” differs from “erode power” . In the scope of this question, we just focus on the power errosion. A business may errode its power, but it does not fail.

(E) Some businesses that have used power in socially responsible ways have lost it.
 Wrong.    SHELL GAME.    This is a very common trap  in both GMAT and usual conversations . The trap is about  NECESSARY  condition vs  SUFFICIENT  condition  
Why E is wrong? Before explaining why E is wrong, please see my example:

Peter:  People who want to get 750 GMAT score must study really hard.
 Mary:  No, you’re wrong! I know some people who work really hard but did not get 750 GMAT score.

Do you think Mary’s statement can weaken Peter’s conclusion? Nope. Peter says if you want to get 750 GMAT, you must work hard. He does not mean if you work hard, you WILL get 750 GMAT. It means  “work hard” is a necessary condition, not sufficient condition.  If you do not work hard, you WILL NOT get 750 GMAT for sure. But if you work hard, it does not guarantee that you WILL get 750 GMAT.

Back to the question, the pattern is the same.  The conclusion says: a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly.  "Act responsibly" is only a necessary condition.  It means if a business does not act responsibly, it will lose its power. But it does not mean, if a business act responsible, it WILL retain its power. E only shows some business act responsibly still loses powers. Hence, It does not weaken the conclusion.

Hope it helps.

Bunuel · Answer

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.

gurpreet07 · Answer

IMO B.......... they key statement in the argument is "In the long run, those who do not use power in a manner which  society considers responsible  will tend to lose it.”

Please note the the argument mentions that the only those companies which are considered by the society to be irresponsible towards the power those companies posess will tend to loose it.......
so it all depends upon the society......

So we can directly counter this statement.....If society considers an institution socially responsible even if its not then there is no meaning to to final conclusion......

gmatjon · Answer

Would appreciate any detailed elaboration on the question. I still do not understand why the OA is B

x2suresh · Answer

Conclusion: Therefore, a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly.

Act responsibly in society --> causes business in power.
X --> Y ( X causes Y)

If we prove that (1) something else causing Y .. then conclusion is weaken.

B) PR causes.. conside X1(Consider responsible even it is not) to be X ( Act responsbily in Society)

X1 causes Y. not X -> Y

So this statement weakening the argument.

Sorry, If I confused you further.

vomhorizon · Answer

The conclusion here is "  a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly ". The speaker justifies this conclusion based on certain premise(S) namely "  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.

The conclusion should follow from the premise and that is the aspect that the test makers love to attack (does the conclusion logically follow from the premise, is it too extreme? too out of scope? contradicts the premise? etc etc ).

The argument is constructed in a way where Because of SO AND SO reason, we can conclude that A company will fail if it does not act socially responsibly etc ..We must look for an answer choice that tries to show the conclusion as wrong (and not the premise) ..

(A) This answer choice does not address the conclusion of the argument, and it hardly weakens the argument (on the contrary it can be said that it may even strengthen the argument)

(B) This directly attacks the conclusion : It does not mention anything about the premise (therefore assumes them to be correct) but attacks the conditional conclusion that is drawn based on those premise. If indeed a company can have a PR department is successive at creating an impression that it is socially responsible the company can well survive and flourish..which doesnt contradict the premise because well " the people never perceive that the company is not socially responsible and therefore it does nothing about stripping its power".

This is similar to the argument that INVESTORS will keep on investing in a stock if the company has a bright future therefore any company that has a uncertain future may well see stocks plunge... We could similarly attack this conclusion by concluding that : Any company that creates a perception that it is going to have a bright future ( even though reality may suggest otherwise) will see its stock rise (this doesn't contradict the premise ..)

(C) This does nothing to weaken the argument, as the argument still stands that those companies will die (though it may be a slow death on some occasions)

(D) This does not address the conclusion, and is out of scope ..

(E) This still does not address the premise or the conclusion.. The premise talks about "THOSE THAT DO NOT USE POWER IN A SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE WAY...WILL TEND TO LOOSE IT...SOCIETY ACTS TO REDUCE POWER...: So the main reason why socially irresponsible companies loose power is that the people take it away from them.. If it is indeed the case that many socially responsible companies LOOSE POWER, there is no mention either in the passage or the answer choice which suggests that PEOPLE HAVE taken power away from it.. It may just have been a badly run company .. or it may loose out to better competition ..

This is an extremely important WEAKEN question from the LSAT and involves CONDITIONAL REASONING.. A great question to build a solid concept on for this category of questions..

benguy · Answer

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.
 not relevant.

(B) Public relations programs can cause society to consider an institution socially responsible even when it is not.
 correct. if this is true, then companies' public relations program can cause the society thinks the company is responsible. therefore those companies must not act responsibly as concluded

(C) The power of some institutions erodes more slowly than the power of others, whether they are socially responsible or not. 
 the rule does not mention about if the companies's power erodes slowly or fast

(D) Since no institution is eternal, every business will eventually fail.
 its not elevant

(E) Some businesses that have used power in socially responsible ways have lost it.
 if this is true, it cannot weaken the argument that the society will ultimately acts when society thinks those businesses do not act responsibly

CEdward · Answer

This is the best explanation of shell game that I've seen. Kudos.

unraveled · Answer

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. - WRONG. Yes, but then what. How doe sit impact conclusion. It does not even touch the reasoning(blue text).

(B) Public relations programs can  cause society to consider an institution socially responsible even when it is not . - CORRECT. When society thinks it reduces power. So, when society is made to believe in something then its thought is manipulated such business need not act responsibility. Conclusion is broke apart.

(C) The  power of some institutions erodes more slowly than the power of others,  whether they are socially responsible or not. - WRONG. Does not affect conclusion.

(D)  Since no institution is eternal , every business will eventually fail. - WRONG. Goes offtrack when eternality is considered.

(E)  Some businesses  that have used power in socially responsible ways have lost it. - WRONG. True and this may weaken but the degree of "some" thus weakening the argument in one case - when "some" stands for most of the business - and does not weakens i.e. does not affect at all - when "some" stands for 1 out of 100 businesses.

More than conclusion the reasoning(blue text) behind that is important.

Answer B.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Speaker: Contemporary business firms need to recognize that avoiding

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Speaker: Contemporary business firms need to recognize that avoiding

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards