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 CensureCP: Reelected or Avoid Censure ---> ~ScandalsConclusion: Scandals --> ~ReelectedThe 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?
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)?
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.