Q13 - Business ethicist: Managers of corporations

by **ohthatpatrick** Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

Question Type:
Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Corp mgrs have an obligation to act in shareholders' interest.
Evidence: Corp mgrs have an obligation to serve shareholders as the shareholders would want to be servevd.

Answer Anticipation:
What a silly argument, LSAT! These parallel claims line up very neatly and tell us that we're moving from "serve them as they would want to be served" to "act in their best interest". Even though it sounds like we're spelling out common sense here, mathematically that is the missing bridge idea needed to make this an airtight argument.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This doesn't link the ideas we need linked. This feels more like an Inference or Necessary Assumption you derive simply from reading the conclusion.

(B) Yes! This cinches together "how they want to be served" with "acting in their best interest".

(C) This does nothing to connect our premise language to our conclusion language.

(D) This doesn't link the ideas we need linked. It also doesn't contain the New Term in the Conclusion: "shareholders' best interest", so it can't be right.

(E) That's closer, but not proof. We still need to hear that the identical way they want to be served is "acting in their best interest".

Takeaway/Pattern: As long as we understand our mathematical task on Sufficient Assumption, we shouldn't have too much issue locating the phrases that need to be connected, and only (B) links them.

#officialexplanation