Proponents of the theory of social utilitarianism hold that the value

Question

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.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

findingmyself · Answer

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.

Value of Human capital- Adds a permanent value to Social well being 
 Maximize HU Good, but have LIMITATIONS 
 If Human capital is a measure of social wellbeing, It Will reduce current value 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. 
 Incorrect: The argument is not questioning, but adding limitations. It won't compromise objectives, but it will give alternate results
 
 (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. 
 Incorrect: Author is not justifying anything in the argument.
 
 (C) Criticizing a strategy by suggesting that there is an alternative way of achieving its proposed advantages without risking a number of serious disadvantages. 
 Incorrect: there is no alternative plan discussed.
 
 (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. 
 Incorrect: No mention of impossibility
 
 (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. 
 Correct: In free market economy, demand should increase price. But argument says implementing the theory of SU WILL REVERSE the same.

okHedwig · Answer

Hi,

I guessed for Ans A, on the fact that it was questioning & not criticising as option B & C, however can you please share a detailed explanation - this passage seemed a little tricky to understand. Thanks in advance!

bb · Answer

Hi  okHedwig

It’s good you guessed it correctly but ideally you won’t understand the passage. This means you may slow down or maybe even jot something on the scratch paper during the test and during the practice sessions now this means you want to go back and see where your understanding was lacking and what tripped you up specifically.

Reading the argument, it looks like it’s pointing out a very substantial flaw in the social utilitarian perspective basically saying that whatever they’re arguing should be done will not work because the end result will be worse than what it is today.

That closely matches answer choice A.

In terms of B and C,

B. isn’t correct because he talks about the means of achieving it and in our case is not the means that are the problem but rather the end result which is weak. The argument doesn’t actually talk about the means at all so this choice which is the perspective from end result to the means which is outside of the scope of the pass.

C. This is somewhat the opposite of what the passage says. This again changes the focus from the silly plan of social utilitarianism to the current method or another method and that’s also not the focus of the argument

So it seems both answer choices that are incorrect that you were considering looked at the problem from another angle and they switch the focus and the scope so that’s something for you to watch out for when you solve practice questions, make sure that you evaluate the scope and you distinguish the difference between what is part of the argument essentially and what is not part of it.

Keep in mind that this is not a solution for all questions but it is a solution for this one as different types of CR questions required different approaches. For example strengthen or we questions will often introduce new information which is not even in the argument. So make sure you also understand the difference and how each of the critical reasoning question types works.

Bunuel · Answer

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.

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hi  Bunuel

With A, my concern is it says "...compromise the very objectives it is trying to achieve." Theory is value of human capital should be in line with social utility, whereas last line of passage suggests, level of human capital might decrease. Increasing the human capital level was not the objective of the theory (it's praiseworthy, one can say preferable in general also), it was value (not levels) to be in line with social utility. "Compromise the very objective" is very strong.

guddo · Answer

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

The passage says that tying the price of labor to  social utility  rather than scarcity would distort the labor market and could end up reducing human capital, so the theory has serious practical limits.

(A) Questioning a proposed strategy by showing that, if implemented, such a strategy could compromise the very objectives it is trying to achieve.

This matches exactly. The strategy aims at improving human capital, but the passage argues it could backfire and reduce it.  That is the core move.

(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.

The passage does not argue “the means are unacceptable.” It argues the policy would create distortions and fail on its own terms.

(C) Criticizing a strategy by suggesting that there is an alternative way of achieving its proposed advantages without risking a number of serious disadvantages.

No alternative approach is offered.

(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.

The passage does concede moral and economic appeal, but it does not say the policy is impossible to implement. It says implementation would likely cause harmful distortions.

(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.

It mentions market distortions, but it does not frame the goal as antithetical to free market principles. That claim is extra.

Answer: (A)

guddo · Answer

I’d say (A) still fits, because the passage treats “measure labor by social utility” as a way to improve human capital, not just re price it.

The key line is: “the distortions may well reduce, and not increase, the current level of human capital.” That wording implies the policy is being defended as something that would increase human capital, and the author’s criticism is that it could do the opposite. So the  objective in play  is increasing human capital, and the argument is: implement it and you may get the reverse.

Also, “value of human capital should bear an inherent relation to its social utility” is presented as a value maximizing scheme. If the market distortions reduce human capital, then even the “value” goal is undermined, because less human capital makes maximizing its value harder.

So “compromise the very objectives” is strong, but it matches the passage’s backfire claim.  It’s a “could backfire on its own aim” argument.

naveeng15 · Answer

I am still confused between A & B

Can u please explain 
 KarishmaB

guddo · Answer

(A) says the policy could  undermine its own goal  (it backfires: meant to improve human capital, but may reduce it).

(B) is a  means vs ends  complaint (the goal is good, but the methods are not worth it). The passage never says the methods are morally unacceptable, only that they cause distortions and backfire.

Proponents of the theory of social utilitarianism hold that the value

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

Proponents of the theory of social utilitarianism hold that the value

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