PrepTest 153, Section 2, Question 26
People should patronize businesses that meet high ethical(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- ASome businesses that(10 more words not shown)
- BMeeting high ethical(10 more words not shown)
- CIt is relatively(17 more words not shown)
- DThe news media(18 more words not shown)
- ESome businesses that(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does one good action make a business highly ethical?
When I choose a product, I might first think about whether it works and whether it's worth the price. The author wants people to consider something else: whether the business meets high ethical standards. Let's accept that goal and ask whether the proposed news coverage would help people achieve it.
Imagine a company pays for one employee to attend college. That could change the employee's life, and it deserves recognition as a good action. But suppose the same company routinely mistreats its other employees. The scholarship doesn't erase that conduct. A business with a poor overall record could still do something notably good.
What we’re looking for
The argument moves from publicizing the good action to directing customers toward businesses that meet high standards. That's the step I don't trust. The story could motivate people to shop at the company without giving them enough information to judge its overall conduct. For the weakener, I'd look for something showing why the notable action is a poor basis for the broader judgment.
Working the answers
- A
This initially sounds relevant because it separates having standards from actually meeting them. A business could announce a demanding code and fail to live up to it. But the argument doesn't say a business deserves our support merely because it has announced high standards. It points to a notable action. A challenges a different way of judging a business, so it doesn't directly address the step we identified.
- BCorrect
At first this might seem to change the subject from good actions to bad ones. But that is why it helps: if meeting high ethical standards is primarily about refraining from misconduct, a report of one good action leaves the most important question unanswered.
Return to the scholarship company. We know it helped one employee. Do we know that it avoids mistreating the others? No. B explains why that missing information matters to the author's own goal of helping people patronize businesses that meet high standards. The proposed coverage could direct customers toward a company without showing that it meets the standard we care about.
'Primarily' doesn't make good actions worthless. The scholarship can still be good. It just isn't enough to settle the overall judgment.
- C
A company can set an easy standard for itself and meet it. The author's recommendation concerns businesses that meet high standards, not whatever low standard a company happens to choose. The ease of meeting a weak requirement doesn't resolve the connection between a notable action and the more demanding overall judgment.
- D
What the media currently tends to publicize is different from what it should publicize. Reporters could focus more often on misconduct while the author's proposed change was still good or bad. D describes their habits without giving a reason the recommendation would fail.
- E
A business could meet high standards while needing to remain profitable. Saying it would stop doing so under different financial conditions doesn't show that it fails to meet them now. This concerns what could motivate a business to change its conduct, not whether a story about one ethical action establishes its current overall standards.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.