Q19 - Speaker: Contemporary business firms

[b91302310]

I could understand why (B) is correct but could anyone explain why (C) could not weaken the argument?

Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

It doesn't matter how quickly or slowly the institutions lose power compared to each other.

Focus on conclusion: that a business that wishes to retain its own power as long as possible should be responsible.

[hdw217]

I have a problem with answer choice C

Since the stimulus explicitly allows for businesses to fail eventually, wouldn't the conclusion be the same as, "businesses that retains power longer acts responsibly" and could also be translated to "businesses power that are eroded less slowly acts responsibly" which would be a contradiction with C which says " business power erodes slowly than others, no matter acting responsibly or not"

is there a problem with my logic?

[anjelica.grace]

I have a problem with answer choice C

Since the stimulus explicitly allows for businesses to fail eventually, wouldn't the conclusion be the same as, "businesses that retains power longer acts responsibly" and could also be translated to "businesses power that are eroded less slowly acts responsibly" which would be a contradiction with C which says " business power erodes slowly than others, no matter acting responsibly or not"

is there a problem with my logic?

I think that you overlook what Brian just pointed out in the post before yours. (C) compares some institutions' rate of power erosion with other institutions, whereas the conclusion is only concerned with a business's own retention/erosion of power.

In other words, it's irrelevant if Business A loses power more slowly than Business B. What is relevant is whether Business A loses power (and thus does not last as long as it possibly can) if it is acting irresponsibly.

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for your question, hdw217. I think your rephrase of the conclusion is good. The conclusion says that in order to retain power as long as possible, a business must act responsibly. That’s pretty close to what you said. And I think you are right to match it up with (C) and point to the contradiction. BUT, the term shift is the key. The premise is about "human institutions." The conclusion is about business. So the natural question is "does the Iron Law apply to businesses?"

(C) points to the gap: if institutions vary in duration regardless of social responsibility, then it weakens the connection between the two.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Demetri

[shirando21]

Why can't E be correct?

[nflamel69]

wait a second... why is demetri explaining it as if C is the correct answer?

[tzyc]

I have the same question...
The correct answer is (B) isn't it...??
Also, why (E) is incorrect?
Thank you

[patrice.antoine]

I have the same question...
The correct answer is (B) isn't it...??
Also, why (E) is incorrect?
Thank you

The stimulus is saying that if a business wants to retain power it must act responsibly. Acting responsibly is the necessary requirement in this instance.

While (E) may appear to weaken the argument, it actually does nothing for our argument. Who is to say those "some businesses" were business who wished to retain its power? Besides, it is also possible those "some businesses" did retain their power for as long as they can until it was lost. The argument leaves room for such to occur.

(B) weakens our argument by saying that an instutition does not necessarily have to act responsibly to retain power (our stimulus states a business MUST act responsibly). Their PR can present the institution in such a manner without them actually doing anything that is socially responsible.


Anyway, that is how I dissected this answer choice. I was stuck with (B) and (E) here. I hope this helps some...would also love to hear the insight of an instructor!

[WaltGrace1983]

Let's take this one from top to bottom.

Law of Responsibility is confirmed but may take awhile (decades or centuries) to actually come to fruition
+
Law of Responsibility: Society acts to reduce power when society thinks it is not being used responsibly
+
A business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly

We are supposed to weaken the claim that businesses must act responsibly. The biggest gap I see here is between actually BEING responsible and having society THINK you are responsible. Maybe a business can BE irresponsible but trick others into thinking that they are responsible.

(A) Out of scope. Who cares about govt. institutions. We are about businesses specifically. Eliminate.

(B) This attacks the gap between considering a business responsible "even when it is not." This is correct.

(C) Even if one was going to say that "some institutions" = "businesses" only, this still wouldn't get the job done as this answer choice is not contradicted and falls perfectly in line with the Law of Responsibility. The Law is not saying that, if a business is socially responsible, it will continue indefinitely! All it is saying is that the business with lack of responsibility will have power eroded. This can take decades or even centuries. This doesn't seem to weaken at all. Eliminate.

(D) This doesn't have anything to do with acting/looking responsible. Eliminate.

(E) This is a very weak answer choice that doesn't affect the argument much ("Some"..."have lost it" - without indication of how long that it took...etc.). However, also understand that we are not concerned with merely talking about socially responsible businesses. We are trying to weaken the claim that social responsibility is NECESSARY, a "must."

This would be a much better answer choice if it said "Businesses that have not used power in socially responsible ways have continued indefinitely" because it attacks the idea that social responsibility is NECESSARY. Even so though, it would still be a bit weak because the Law allows for irresponsible businesses to take awhile to fizzle out. Eliminate.

[BillP]

(E) This is a very weak answer choice that doesn't affect the argument much ("Some"..."have lost it" - without indication of how long that it took...etc.). However, also understand that we are not concerned with merely talking about socially responsible businesses. We are trying to weaken the claim that social responsibility is NECESSARY, a "must."

I would add that E is consistent with the argument. For the argument suggests that being socially responsible is necessary for an institution to retain its power for as long as it can, but it is not sufficient. For example, an institution could be socially responsible but make foolish financial choices and, thus, lose its power.

[aaronwfrank]

(E) This is a very weak answer choice that doesn't affect the argument much ("Some"..."have lost it" - without indication of how long that it took...etc.). However, also understand that we are not concerned with merely talking about socially responsible businesses. We are trying to weaken the claim that social responsibility is NECESSARY, a "must."

I would add that E is consistent with the argument. For the argument suggests that being socially responsible is necessary for an institution to retain its power for as long as it can, but it is not sufficient. For example, an institution could be socially responsible but make foolish financial choices and, thus, lose its power.

I think you're right. Ultimately, answer (E) seems to be attacking the reverse of what was set out in the stimulus (wish to retain power-->act responsibly).

E might work if the conclusion was act responsibly--> wish to retain power, since it's showing that the sufficient can appear without the necessary by saying these people acted socially responsible but did not retain power. Please correct me if I'm wrong.