PT #39, L.R. Sec. 2 #6 ...aghhh

[BABALITY!]

I did this question from the LR Bible and have a couple of questions. Here it is:

PT #39, Section 2, Question #6:

A politician can neither be reelected nor avoid censure by his or her colleagues if that politician is known to be involved in any serious scandals. Several prominent politicians have just now been shown to be involved in a conspiracy that turned into a serious scandal. These politicians will therefore not be reelected.

If the statements above are all true, which one of the following statements must also be true?

A. The prominent politicians cannot escape censure by their colleagues.

B. If there had been no scandal, the prominent politicians would be reelected.

C. No politician is censured unless he or she is involved in a serious scandal.

D. The prominent politicians initially benefited from the conspiracy that caused the scandal.

E. Some politicians who are involved in the scandalous conspiracies avoid detection and censure.

This is the diagram I got:

Scandals --> ~Reelected and ~Avoid Censure
CP: Reelected or Avoid Censure ---> ~Scandals
Conclusion: Scandals --> ~Reelected

The answer is A and I'm not sure if I understand the reasoning behind it completely. Is it because in order for SCANDALS  to happen as it did in the conclusion, it needs BOTH the necessary conditions of ~Reelected -AND- ~Avoid Censure? The conclusion gives us ~Reelected, so ~Avoid Censure also HAS to happen as well? Is this the proper reasoning behind the answer?

[LSAT All Star]

This is another one of those questions that divides the people who get the section complete from those who do not.  Those who immediately begin with symbolizing and thinking about sufficient and necessary conditions and their consequences will needlessly waste a lot of time on this question.  Before you do that, you should take a look at the response options and make sure you need to do the extra work before you actually do it.

Choice A?  Doesn’t sound obviously wrong.  Keep it.

Choice B?  No.  Can’t know what would happen if there had been no scandal.  Only know what happens if there had been one.

Choice C?  No.  Don’t know about other ways for a politician to be censored.  Only know this one.

Choice D?  No.  Have no idea if they initially benefitted or not.

Choice E?  No.  Have no idea if all who are involved are caught.

We are done. 

As far as your diagram and question, this is the only diagram I got

Premise 1:  If A (caught in scandal) then Not B (reelected) and Not C (avoid censure)
Premise 2:  D (these politicians) are A
therefore
Conclusion:  D are Not B

Choice A?  D are Not C.  Obviously true.

[Bernie]

I did this question from the LR Bible and have a couple of questions. Here it is:

PT #39, Section 2, Question #6:

A politician can neither be reelected nor avoid censure by his or her colleagues if that politician is known to be involved in any serious scandals. Several prominent politicians have just now been shown to be involved in a conspiracy that turned into a serious scandal. These politicians will therefore not be reelected.

If the statements above are all true, which one of the following statements must also be true?

A. The prominent politicians cannot escape censure by their colleagues.

B. If there had been no scandal, the prominent politicians would be reelected.

C. No politician is censured unless he or she is involved in a serious scandal.

D. The prominent politicians initially benefited from the conspiracy that caused the scandal.

E. Some politicians who are involved in the scandalous conspiracies avoid detection and censure.

This is the diagram I got:

Scandals --> ~Reelected and ~Avoid Censure
CP: Reelected or Avoid Censure ---> ~Scandals
Conclusion: Scandals --> ~Reelected

The answer is A and I'm not sure if I understand the reasoning behind it completely. Is it because in order for SCANDALS  to happen as it did in the conclusion, it needs BOTH the necessary conditions of ~Reelected -AND- ~Avoid Censure? The conclusion gives us ~Reelected, so ~Avoid Censure also HAS to happen as well? Is this the proper reasoning behind the answer?

The conclusion is only that they won't be reelected.  The fact that they were involved in scandals is a fact given as evidence.  Since that fact is true, it also must be true that the politicians won't be reelected and won't avoid censure (Scandals --> ~Reelected and ~Avoid Censure).  Thus, A must be true.  It's inferred that they cannot avoid censure because it's known that they were in a scandal, not because of the fact given in the conclusion (that they won't be reelected).

[BABALITY!]

Appreciate it guys.

I've got one more that's been driving me crazy. I'm not sure what test it's from because I'm taking it from the LR Bible...

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. Govt 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.

Now, in my Powerscore class they told us that the word 'argument' is synonymous with 'conclusion' when it's in the question stem. So, the first thing I did was look for the conclusion, which is in the last sentence, "Therefore, a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly." Now, it looks like the main point of the conclusion is the length of time a business can retain its power... so I look to the answer choices to attack that reasoning. After a cursory look, I thought you could eliminate answers A and B because they don't relate directly to the concluding argument (time of retaining power.) C was ultimately my final choice, because it weakens the argument that for a business to retain power as long as it can, it must act responsibly. This answer choice suggests that power dwindles at random, with no accordance to social responsibility. B ends up being the right answer, and I can't understand for the life of me why it's a better selection than C.

Am I attacking the question wrong? Am I supposed to go after the conclusion like I did (we were taught to do this in Powerscore)?

[tcwhat]

Appreciate it guys.

I've got one more that's been driving me crazy. I'm not sure what test it's from because I'm taking it from the LR Bible...

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. Govt 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.

Now, in my Powerscore class they told us that the word 'argument' is synonymous with 'conclusion' when it's in the question stem. So, the first thing I did was look for the conclusion, which is in the last sentence, "Therefore, a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly." Now, it looks like the main point of the conclusion is the length of time a business can retain its power... so I look to the answer choices to attack that reasoning. After a cursory look, I thought you could eliminate answers A and B because they don't relate directly to the concluding argument (time of retaining power.) C was ultimately my final choice, because it weakens the argument that for a business to retain power as long as it can, it must act responsibly. This answer choice suggests that power dwindles at random, with no accordance to social responsibility. B ends up being the right answer, and I can't understand for the life of me why it's a better selection than C.

Am I attacking the question wrong? Am I supposed to go after the conclusion like I did (we were taught to do this in Powerscore)?

You are supposed to attack the conclusion, but you need to show that when the sufficient condition occurs the necessary condition doesn't automatically occur in order to weaken it.

In this case, you diagram the conclusion like so:

WRP = Wishes to retain power
AR = Act Responsibly

WRP ---> AR

B directly contradicts the conclusion since a company that wants to retain power can simply hire a PR firm in lieu of acting responsibly and be socially irresponsible.  It allows for the sufficient condition to occur without the necessary condition.

C doesn't have a real effect upon the conclusion.  The stimulus makes mention that some organizations lose power in different time frames(centuries vs. decades) and C supports that. 


Later edit - I just realized I pretty much restated what the PowerScore book said - I did it from memory from doing that problem about a million times

[ssilver0210]

In these "weaken" questions, the conclusion of the given passage is extremely important. The conclusion given is that a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibily.

You said that you eliminated choice B because choice B didn't relate directly to the concluding argument. 

Here is why choice B seriously weakens the concluding sentence of the passage:  The conclusion states that a business that wishes to retain its power must act responsibily. It must act responsibily because if it does not, then society will act to reduce the power of the business.

You need to look for an answer choice that states (as closely as possible) that even if a business does not act responsibly, society will not act to reduce the power of the business. This would be a direct contradiction of the conclusion, and the closer you can come to a direct contradiction, the more the passage is weakened.

Choice B states that even if a business does not act responsibly, society might still consider it socially responsible. This directly contradicts the conclusion stating that if a business does not act responsibly then society will not consider it socially responsible, and attempt to reduce the power of the businss. Because it directly contradicts the conclusion, it's the best choice.

[LSAT All Star]

In these "weaken" questions, the conclusion of the given passage is extremely important. The conclusion given is that a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly.

You said that you eliminated choice B because choice B didn't relate directly to the concluding argument. 

Here is why choice B seriously weakens the concluding sentence of the passage:  The conclusion states that a business that wishes to retain its power must act responsibly. It must act responsibly because if it does not, then society will act to reduce the power of the business.

You need to look for an answer choice that states (as closely as possible) that even if a business does not act responsibly, society will not act to reduce the power of the business. This would be a direct contradiction of the conclusion, and the closer you can come to a direct contradiction, the more the passage is weakened.

Choice B states that even if a business does not act responsibly, society might still consider it socially responsible. This directly contradicts the conclusion stating that if a business does not act responsibly then society will not consider it socially responsible, and attempt to reduce the power of the business. Because it directly contradicts the conclusion, it's the best choice.

Although you got the cr right, I think you missed this one a little.  You claim the premises lead to the conclusion and you have to best negate the conclusion.  That is not what is happening in this question.  The problem is the gap between the premises and conclusion.  The premises state what will happen if society does not "consider" a company to be responsible.   The conclusion is about what will happen if the do not "act" responsibly.  The premises never said they had to act that way; only that society must "consider" them to have acted that way. 

In this case, you are not necessarily looking for an answer choice "that states (as closely as possible) that even if a business does not act responsibly, society will not act to reduce the power of the business."  If you got one, that would be nice.  But, in this case Choice B doesn't say that.  In fact, at best, it says that even if a business does not act responsibly, society may not act to reduce the power of the business.  This answer choice does not say "will not" as you paraphrased. 

In this case, the cr is the answer choice which best points out the gap between the premises and the conclusion.  The gap is the premises are about what people think while the conclusion is about how companies must act.  The speaker assumes these are one and them same when reaching his conclusion.  They are not.  People can perceive something differently that what is real.  Choice B is the cr because it points that out.

[ssilver0210]

All Star,

I understand your perspective here (it's certainly correct, and there is a gap), but I think my approach also can get to the correct response.

The conclusion states that "a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can, must act responsibly. This is because if society considers a business to be acting irresponsibly, society will try to reduce the power of that business.

But if public relations programs can cause society to consider an institution socially responsible, even if it is not socially responsible, then the conclusion stating that a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly, is weakened.

This is because a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can need not act responsibly because even if it does not act responsibly, there will still be available public relations programs that can cause society to consider the business socially responsible.

I agree that choice B merely states that society may not act to reduce the power of a business, even if that business is not acting responsibly. But society possibly not acting to reduce the power of a business, even if that business is not acting responsibly, still weakens a conclusion stating that society will act to reduce the power of a business if society considers that institution to not be acting responsibly.

[mhisha]

This 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.


Can someone please help if I am right in drawing the following diagrams:

ASR causes GEP

Not PR => L
Not R=> SRP

therefore:

B=> R

Can we draw the answer from these diagrams. I am confused. Please help..

M

[prelaw12]

Man on questions like these, which aren't too complex, going through all of the diagramming and finding necessary and sufficient conditions and all that can really waste time and make it a much more difficult question than it really is. The lsat measures logical reasoning. Just think about what the argument is saying: that only socially responsible businesses survive a long time. Then choose the answer that demonstrates how a socially irresponsible business can survive for a long time too. Choice b does this better than any other.