LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- mxl392
-
Thanks Received: 0
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 22
- Joined: July 16th, 2012
Q17
I can't see why B is wrong, although I can see why A can be right. The author only discusses the CEO's moral obligations at the very end of the passage. I realize CEO appears a billion times throughout the passage, but I assumed the main point wouldn't focus on the CEO but instead on morality and corporations.
-
- giladedelman
-
Thanks Received: 833
- LSAT Geek
- Posts: 619
- Joined: April 04th, 2010
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q17
Thanks for the question!
So, on these synthesis (i.e. "main point") questions, it's essential that we identify the author's argument. In this passage, this means focusing on the final paragraph, which is where the author's voice starts to be heard.
The point that the final paragraph is making is expressed in the first sentence: "the economists' position does not hold up under careful scrutiny." Now, what is the economists' position? For that, we have to look to the preceding paragraph: "economists argue that a CEO’s sole responsibility is to the owners, whose primary interest, except in charitable institutions, is the protection of their profits." In other words, the CEO should be worried about profits, and not about the public good. The author is arguing that this position is WRONG.
So we can sum up the author's argument as, "Actually, CEOs do have an obligation to the public good, not just to profits."
And that's what (A) says. It does a nice job wrapping up the points made in the final paragraph.
(B) is tempting, because the author does believe corporations should act morally, but the rest of the answer choice is messed up. The passage never says 1) that morality is not easily ascribed to nonhuman entities, and 2) that the basis for a corporation's obligation to act morally is based on the fact that it's a collection of individuals. (In fact, the passage does not say that every individual "must act morally.") Rather, the basis is that the CEO's moral obligations are ultimately more binding that his or her legal/fiduciary obligations.
(C) is the opposite of what the author says.
(D) gives only the economists' view, and not the author's.
(E) is likewise directly contradicted by the passage.
Does that answer your question?
So, on these synthesis (i.e. "main point") questions, it's essential that we identify the author's argument. In this passage, this means focusing on the final paragraph, which is where the author's voice starts to be heard.
The point that the final paragraph is making is expressed in the first sentence: "the economists' position does not hold up under careful scrutiny." Now, what is the economists' position? For that, we have to look to the preceding paragraph: "economists argue that a CEO’s sole responsibility is to the owners, whose primary interest, except in charitable institutions, is the protection of their profits." In other words, the CEO should be worried about profits, and not about the public good. The author is arguing that this position is WRONG.
So we can sum up the author's argument as, "Actually, CEOs do have an obligation to the public good, not just to profits."
And that's what (A) says. It does a nice job wrapping up the points made in the final paragraph.
(B) is tempting, because the author does believe corporations should act morally, but the rest of the answer choice is messed up. The passage never says 1) that morality is not easily ascribed to nonhuman entities, and 2) that the basis for a corporation's obligation to act morally is based on the fact that it's a collection of individuals. (In fact, the passage does not say that every individual "must act morally.") Rather, the basis is that the CEO's moral obligations are ultimately more binding that his or her legal/fiduciary obligations.
(C) is the opposite of what the author says.
(D) gives only the economists' view, and not the author's.
(E) is likewise directly contradicted by the passage.
Does that answer your question?
2 posts Page 1 of 1