- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Oct 15, 2019
- Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:00 am
#75296
Complete Question Explanation
The correct answer choice is C.
This question is asking about the Purpose of the passage. Purpose questions on Reading Comprehension are related to but slightly different from Main Point questions. Main Point questions essentially ask us, "What is this author saying?", whereas Purpose questions are getting at, "Why did this author write this?".
To attack Purpose questions, we look at both the content of the passage (i.e. the Main Point) as well as the structure. What do we mean by the structure? For example, let's say a passage's first paragraph explains a generally accepted concept. Then for the rest of the passage, the author explains a specific applied example of that concept. We would say that the author's purpose was something like, "Applying a general concept to this specific situation." Or another example - the first paragraph provides one philosopher's viewpoint, the second paragraph provides a second philosopher's opposing viewpoint, and the third paragraph outlines the author's view on why the first is right and the second is wrong. We would say that the author's Purpose was along the lines of, "To support one philosophical viewpoint and weaken the opposing viewpoint." All this to say - the way the author structures the passage often clues us into why she wrote it.
It is the same for this question - we look at content and structure of the passage. The first 3 paragraphs set up and lay out the economists' position (a CEO should maximize profits), while the long last paragraph consists of the author's arguments against those economists. This clues us in that the author's specific purpose in writing this passage was to attack those economists' views. Otherwise, why would the entire passage be dedicated (both structurally and content-wise) to explaining and then attacking those views? So we would Pre-Phrase an answer here of something like, "Argue against the position of a group of economists".
We then come down to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A): Way out of scope. There is no mention of any paradox in the passage.
Answer Choice (B): At no point does the author mention legal reform. The author seems to accept the law as is, and instead takes the position that the moral choice for a CEO may sometimes be the illegal one.
Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer. The passage is set up to argue against the claim of the economists that a CEO should always seek to maximize profits. "Refute" can be a close synonym of "argue against" (from Merriam-Webster: "refute" means "to deny the truth or accuracy of"). This closely matches our Pre-Phrase.
Answer Choice (D): It is hard to really know what "decision" (D) could be referring to. Maybe it is referring to the last sentence, and (D) means "explaining the decision of a CEO to value the public good over profit maximization in a specific instance"? But the author's primary purpose here is not to rationalize a CEO's decision; instead the last sentence is merely a potential example that the author uses to illustrate her real purpose: attacking the economists' view that a CEO should always seek to maximize profits.
Answer Choice (E): What concept is defined in this passage? Perhaps the fiduciary obligations of a CEO, sort of? But the author's aim with this passage is not to merely inform the reader about the definition of a concept, it is to attack the views of economists.
The correct answer choice is C.
This question is asking about the Purpose of the passage. Purpose questions on Reading Comprehension are related to but slightly different from Main Point questions. Main Point questions essentially ask us, "What is this author saying?", whereas Purpose questions are getting at, "Why did this author write this?".
To attack Purpose questions, we look at both the content of the passage (i.e. the Main Point) as well as the structure. What do we mean by the structure? For example, let's say a passage's first paragraph explains a generally accepted concept. Then for the rest of the passage, the author explains a specific applied example of that concept. We would say that the author's purpose was something like, "Applying a general concept to this specific situation." Or another example - the first paragraph provides one philosopher's viewpoint, the second paragraph provides a second philosopher's opposing viewpoint, and the third paragraph outlines the author's view on why the first is right and the second is wrong. We would say that the author's Purpose was along the lines of, "To support one philosophical viewpoint and weaken the opposing viewpoint." All this to say - the way the author structures the passage often clues us into why she wrote it.
It is the same for this question - we look at content and structure of the passage. The first 3 paragraphs set up and lay out the economists' position (a CEO should maximize profits), while the long last paragraph consists of the author's arguments against those economists. This clues us in that the author's specific purpose in writing this passage was to attack those economists' views. Otherwise, why would the entire passage be dedicated (both structurally and content-wise) to explaining and then attacking those views? So we would Pre-Phrase an answer here of something like, "Argue against the position of a group of economists".
We then come down to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A): Way out of scope. There is no mention of any paradox in the passage.
Answer Choice (B): At no point does the author mention legal reform. The author seems to accept the law as is, and instead takes the position that the moral choice for a CEO may sometimes be the illegal one.
Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer. The passage is set up to argue against the claim of the economists that a CEO should always seek to maximize profits. "Refute" can be a close synonym of "argue against" (from Merriam-Webster: "refute" means "to deny the truth or accuracy of"). This closely matches our Pre-Phrase.
Answer Choice (D): It is hard to really know what "decision" (D) could be referring to. Maybe it is referring to the last sentence, and (D) means "explaining the decision of a CEO to value the public good over profit maximization in a specific instance"? But the author's primary purpose here is not to rationalize a CEO's decision; instead the last sentence is merely a potential example that the author uses to illustrate her real purpose: attacking the economists' view that a CEO should always seek to maximize profits.
Answer Choice (E): What concept is defined in this passage? Perhaps the fiduciary obligations of a CEO, sort of? But the author's aim with this passage is not to merely inform the reader about the definition of a concept, it is to attack the views of economists.