PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 13
Business ethicist: Managers of corporations have an obligation(24 more words not shown)
The business ethicist's conclusion follows(9 more words not shown)
- ACorporate managers are(12 more words not shown)
- BShareholders would want(13 more words not shown)
- CA corporate manager's(13 more words not shown)
- DThe shareholders have(9 more words not shown)
- EAll shareholders want(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What people want isn't always what is best for them. Think about someone craving something harmful. Satisfying that craving gives the person what they want without necessarily helping them. A shareholder might instead want more profit, better products, or a company that does some good in the world. The premise tells managers to serve shareholders as they want to be served. The conclusion changes that to serving their best interests. Those ideas can line up, but the argument hasn't shown that they do.
We don't need to claim that shareholders generally make harmful choices. The craving example simply shows why a desire and a best interest aren't interchangeable. A wish for the company to take some action doesn't itself establish that the action helps the person making the wish.
What we’re looking for
To make the conclusion follow, connect the two: the ways shareholders want to be served must all be in their best interest. If managers are obligated to follow those wishes, and those wishes only call for service in shareholders' best interests, the conclusion follows.
Working the answers
- A
Being able to identify someone's best interests doesn't create an obligation to act on them. Even a manager who knows exactly what is best for shareholders could face wishes that point elsewhere. A concerns the manager's ability; it doesn't connect the obligation in the premise to the different obligation in the conclusion.
- BCorrect
Shareholders want to be served only in ways that are in their best interest. Now following the wishes specified in the premise necessarily involves serving their best interests. The premise supplies the obligation to follow those wishes, and B tells us that doing so requires the conduct described in the conclusion.
- C
The argument doesn't rank this obligation above every other one. A person can have obligations to both family and neighbors without either obligation disappearing. Likewise, managers could have duties to employees or customers as well as shareholders. Priority among those duties doesn't resolve whether shareholders' wishes serve their interests.
- D
Being the best person to serve an interest isn't the same as having an obligation to serve it. This also leaves the central gap untouched: we still don't know whether the service shareholders want is in their best interest.
- E
Agreement among shareholders doesn't make their shared wish beneficial. They could all want the same harmful decision. Conversely, different shareholders might have different wishes that are each in their own best interest. Uniformity doesn't supply the connection from wanting something to benefiting from it.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- PrepTest 137, Section 4, Question 20Sufficient Assumption
- PrepTest 137, Section 3, Question 3Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.