#18 - President of Central Supply Company: Profits are at

[moshei24]

Gotcha - he would have to have made the point he was making in the conclusion in a premise?

[jona_zx]

I got this right but I am still tempted by A somewhat. When tthe stimulus says "so it is important to prevent any further decreases in profits" (in order to avoid bankruptcy) isnt it assuming that bankruptcy is bad without offering support for that? Filing bankruptcy can be desirable in some situations...

[Jeff Wren]

Hi jona,

Good question!

First, while declaring bankruptcy can lead to the end of a company, it doesn't always (Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for example), so those two ideas are not synonymous.

Second, while the survival of the company may not necessarily have been a good thing from the outside perspective of the world, the economy, etc.. (for example, perhaps the company has actually done more harm to the environment than any benefit that it has provided), it is reasonable for a president of a company (in their role as president) to assume that the survival of their company has been a good thing and the continued survival of their company is desirable. Not every assumption made in an argument is an unwarranted (or flawed) assumption. Some assumptions are completely reasonable. While you're correct that in some circumstances declaring bankruptcy would be the best option available, this president is assuming that avoiding bankruptcy would be preferable if possible, which may be a reasonable assumption in this situation.

Third, the flaw in most arguments occurs in the conclusion, and this argument is no different. Here, even though the argument assumes that bankruptcy should be avoided if possible (which may be completely reasonable), the argument then concludes that there are only two ways to prevent further decreases in profits, when there may in fact be other ways. This is where the specific flaw takes place in this argument.