#16 - Corporate businesses, like species, must adapt to

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption—SN. The correct answer choice is (E)

Here the author presents several conditional statements. When we diagram these conditional
statements, we might note that the first two sentences are basically contrapositives of one another:

Corporate businesses must adapt to survive. So for survival, adaptation is necessary:

survive adapt

If no longer efficient (don’t adapt) then businesses become extinct:

adapt survive

But sometimes, a business cannot adapt without changing its core philosophy (that is, if a business is
to adapt, it is necessary that the business change its core philosophy):

adapt change core philosophy

Linking the diagram above with that of the first sentence, we arrive at the following:

survive adapt change core philosophy

The author then jumps to the conclusion (introduced by the common conclusion indicator “hence”)
that if a business wishes to survive, it must become a different corporation:

survive different corporation

The stimulus is followed by an assumption question, and we should recognize it as a supporter
assumption. The correct answer choice will likely provide a link between “change core philosophy”
and “different corporation,” and allow the author’s conclusion to be properly drawn.

Answer choice (A): The author provides that sometimes survival requires a change in core corporate
philosophy—there is no need to assume that this is always the case, and this choice does not provide
the link discussed above, so this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Although inefficient businesses will become extinct, the argument presented in
the stimulus does not require the presumption that inefficiency leads to a surrender of core corporate
philosophies. Like incorrect answer choice (A) above, this choice fails to provide the needed link
between a change in core philosophy and becoming a different corporation.

Answer choice (C): This choice may be tempting, because it deals with concepts that are closely
related to the ones we are attempting to link. However, there is a subtle but important difference:
this choice lacks the concept of changing core philosophies. The conclusion does not require the
assumption that every corporation has a different core philosophy, and this choice does not fit our
prephrase above.

Answer choice (D): The conditional statement provided by this incorrect answer choice can be
diagrammed as follows:

core philosophy intact continue to exist

This choice does not deal with becoming a different corporation and is not the prephrased
assumption required by the author’s conclusion.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice, and the one which provides the link
prephrased in the discussion above. A business cannot change its core philosophy without becoming
a different corporation. Another way to word this would be to say that if a business is to change its
core philosophy, it is necessary to become a different corporation:

change core philosophy become different corp.

This is the conditional statement that we can link to the premises from the stimulus, in order to
arrive logically at the author’s conclusion—that a business can survive only by becoming a different
corporation:

survive adapt change core philosophy become different corp

[afinelli]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the right answer is the right answer. Any explanation would be very helpful!

I thought that E was too strong to be an assumption required for the argument. Because the argument uses "sometimes" I took this to mean that a business can change its core corporate philosophy without becoming a different corporation. So I went with C, the assumption that is less strong than E.

Thanks for any help!

[Steve Stein]

Regarding question #16, the author says that for a business to survive, it must adapt, and that to adapt, a business must sometimes change its core philosophy. The author then jumps to the conclusion that in order to survive, a business must sometimes become a different corporation. The correct answer choice must provide a link between the first two premises and this new conclusion about sometimes becoming a different corporation.

Correct answer choice (E) has the needed link, providing that for a business to change its core philosophy, it must become a different corporation. With this new link, the author’s conclusion is justified: For a business to survive, it must adapt. To adapt, it must sometimes change its core philosophy, which requires becoming a different corporation.

[afinelli]

Thanks so much, Steve. Does that mean #16 is a justify and not assumption question?

[Steve Stein]

No problem--I'm glad that was helpful. As for #16, it's actually a Supporter Assumption question, where the right answer links the rogue elements to fill the gaps in the argument. Unlike a Justify question, in which the correct answer choice must be sufficient to justify the conclusion, Assumption questions require you to find the assumption that is necessary to the conclusion.

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello,
I am having a hard time understanding assumption questions. I have gone through the course books as well as the LR Bible. It seems that I am having the most difficulty with the defender questions. For instance question 16 is a defender? I choose answer choice D, but the correct answer choice was E.

How would I negate question choice E? because the answer choice contains cannot and without?

Thankyou
Sarah

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, srcline,

This is closer to being a Supporter choice than a Defender choice, actually. The two can be easily mistaken for each other, though, so don't worry about it.

We have a chain of logic that flows like this:

A business must adapt to survive.
Sometimes, in order to adapt, a business must change its core corporate philosophy.
[nothing]
Sometimes, in order to survive, a business must become a different corporation.

The logic goes like Survive Adapt Change its core corporate philosophy, and also Survive Become a different corporation, so answer choice E correctly fills the gap with Change its core corporate philosophy Become a different corporation.

See how it works? Sometimes, in order to survive, a business must adapt by changing its core corporate philosophy and therefore becoming a different corporation. That's all of it in one go.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[emilysnoddon]

I understand all of the above but it seems to me that answer choice C also connects the premises to the new conclusion in that different corporations have different core corporate philosophies. I felt as though E might be too strong - why does it HAVE to be true that a business cannot change its core corporate philosophy without being a different corporation. Is this because if this is not true then it wouldn't be necessary for a business to become a different corporation in order to survive?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Emily,

You may have answered your own question You are correct - if you negate answer choice (E), that would immediately destroy the conclusion of the argument. Indeed, if it were possible for a business to change its corporate philosophy without becoming a different corporation, then the conclusion would make no sense at all. Thus, the author clearly assumes that different corporate philosophies require different corporations:

Different philosophy Different corporation

Answer choice (E) is a strong statement, you're right, but this is not a problem considering the absolute, deterministic language in the argument's conclusion. Don't be fooled by the word "sometimes": the reasoning here is conditional, warranting a conditional construction in the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C) need not be true for the conclusion to be logically valid. Even if several different corporations all shared the same corporate philosophy, that would not weaken the conclusion of the argument.

Hope this clears things up!

Thanks

[TOgren2424]

Would an answer choice that stated "A business cannot adapt without becoming a different corporation" also be correct for this question?