#26 - People should patronize businesses that meet high

[andy12]

I incorrectly selected C - is the reason that is incorrect because "not very high" does not equal "high", or "its" standards vs. "high" standards? I was thinking if a business set their ethical standards to be easily achievable (and not actually that high), they could get the credit without actually meeting high ethical standards.

I see now how B specifically targets the stimulus in that it could be one "notably ethical action" (or non-action), but is there anything else I can watch out for in a late-section tricky (for me, at least) question?

Thanks!!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Andy,

Answer C actually has both of the problems that you mentioned. First "not very high" does not equal "high." In fact, it suggests average or even low. (For example, if someone says that they "didn't do very well" on a test, that is usually an understatement/euphemism for they did poorly.)

In addition, whether a business meets its own low ethical standards is irrelevant because the argument in the stimulus is only about high ethical standards in an absolute sense. For example, if a restaurant is really proud of itself for not poisoning a customer this week, that probably wouldn't qualify as meeting the high ethical standards mentioned in the argument.

What Answer B is really addressing is that if meeting ethical standards mostly involves refraining from unethical behavior, then there really wouldn't be many notable ethical actions for the news to report. For example, the news isn't likely to report that a business hasn't violated the law this year because that generally isn't really newsworthy.

[AnaSol]

Hi Powerscore,

Can you please help me understand how the correct answer weakens the conclusion? I can't see the connection.

Thanks!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Sure, Ana!

If the news should publicize when businesses PERFORM a notable ethical action, it requires a positive act. If ethical actions are more about refraining from an act (as described in answer choice (B)) then there would be nothing for the news to publicize---no positive act to publicize would exist. That's how it weakens the argument.

Hope that helps!

[nicizle]

To be honest, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how any of these answer choices bear any relevance to what's being discussed in the stimulus--they all seem like very weak answers to me that have marginal impact on the argument in terms of weakening. I struggle a lot with these late stage strengthen/weaken questions because the answer choice always seems to be a profound reach or something that has extremely marginal relevance to what's being discussed.

With respect to AC B, I'm still struggling to understand the connection to the stimulus. If the stimulus is saying that people should shop at businesses with high ethical standards and that the media should publicize when a business does "notably ethical action" because people are possibly more inclined to shop there, why do we care even remotely about what B is saying? To me, an apt weakener would suggest that there is no relationship between business ethics and customer's inclination to patronize them, or that ethics is not enough to stimulate business... or asserting that just because a business performs a 'notably ethical action,' doesn't necessarily mean the business exhibits high ethical standards.

Even if B is true, how does that impact what the stimulus is discussing? Who cares that meeting high ethical standards just means not doing anything bad? How does that weaken the assertion that the media should publicize notably ethical actions?

Is the weakener in choice B the implication that lowering the standard for what "high ethics" means actually means that many businesses could be classified as "high ethics" just by doing the bare minimum in not doing bad? But even at that, I really don't see how that weakens the idea that the media should publicize notable ethical actions.

Sorry for the long post, but I'm just struggling to see how literally any of these answer choices help weaken the conclusion, let alone AC B.

If possible, a complete explanation would be nice.

[Adam Tyson]

Let's try looking at it in a totally abstract way, nicizle. The argument is that people should do X, and the news media should help them do X. Therefore, when Y happens, the news media should publicize it, because that will help people do X.

Answer B means that Y is not an example of X. In essence, Y and X are not related. That pretty well ruins the argument that the news media should publicize Y in order to make X happen.

Or try this analogy: What if I am supposed to help my niece find a good husband? Someone says that to do that, I should look for a guy who is wealthy and charming. But what if a good husband is one who treats her with respect and kindness? Now there doesn't seem to be a good reason to focus on money and charm, is there?