- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:15 am
#31337
Complete Question Explanation
A Point at Issue question here, where we must determine to which of the five claims in the answers Nick and Pedro would give opposing answers. This question is in the Prove family, like Must Be True questions, and we must therefore rely entirely on the text in the stimulus to guide our selection.
Nick begins by claiming that the university should not give a contract to a competitor of a construction company that has, along with the family that owns it, been a long time financial supporter, on the grounds that doing so would be disloyal. Pedro responds that the university has no obligation to refuse to award the contract to the competitor, because if there was such an obligation it would devalue the charity of the longtime donor, apparently treating it as a payment for services rather than a charitable donation. He concludes that the contract should go to the most competitive bidder, regardless of who that turns out to be. The stem asks us what it is that the two disagree about.
Answer A: This is a potentially attractive wrong answer that asks whether loyalty should sometimes be taken into consideration in business matters. While Nick would clearly say yes, it is unclear what Pedro would say about whether it should ever be a consideration. We know only that he would say it should not be a consideration in this case or in similar cases involving a charitable donor. In other business matters that do not involve charitable contributions, Pedro might be fine with giving loyalty some weight - we just can't know based on this stimulus. For that reason, this answer must be rejected.
Answer B: This answer asks about the motives of the family for making their donations over the years. It's unclear, based solely on the text, what either of our speakers would say about that, so this answer cannot be the credited response. We need clear evidence that one person would say yes and the other would say no, and there is too much room for doubt here.
Answer C: This is the correct answer. Nick's argument is based on the idea that accepting a donation does place the university under an obligation to the donor, while Pedro argues against that very idea, saying it does not do so. Nick would say yes, Pedro would say no, and we have sufficient proof, based solely on the text, that this is the point at issue.
Answer D: This answer sets up a sort of sliding scale of gratitude, with long time donors deserving more than to newer donors. As neither of our speakers advance any such idea, and the stimulus says nothing about any such a comparison or indeed about any new donors, this answer is a loser.
Answer E: This brings new information that is completely unknown from the stimulus. It is unclear whether any bids have yet been submitted, let alone about whose is the most competitive. Due to this new information, not allowed when dealing with questions in the Prove family, this too must be rejected as a loser.
A Point at Issue question here, where we must determine to which of the five claims in the answers Nick and Pedro would give opposing answers. This question is in the Prove family, like Must Be True questions, and we must therefore rely entirely on the text in the stimulus to guide our selection.
Nick begins by claiming that the university should not give a contract to a competitor of a construction company that has, along with the family that owns it, been a long time financial supporter, on the grounds that doing so would be disloyal. Pedro responds that the university has no obligation to refuse to award the contract to the competitor, because if there was such an obligation it would devalue the charity of the longtime donor, apparently treating it as a payment for services rather than a charitable donation. He concludes that the contract should go to the most competitive bidder, regardless of who that turns out to be. The stem asks us what it is that the two disagree about.
Answer A: This is a potentially attractive wrong answer that asks whether loyalty should sometimes be taken into consideration in business matters. While Nick would clearly say yes, it is unclear what Pedro would say about whether it should ever be a consideration. We know only that he would say it should not be a consideration in this case or in similar cases involving a charitable donor. In other business matters that do not involve charitable contributions, Pedro might be fine with giving loyalty some weight - we just can't know based on this stimulus. For that reason, this answer must be rejected.
Answer B: This answer asks about the motives of the family for making their donations over the years. It's unclear, based solely on the text, what either of our speakers would say about that, so this answer cannot be the credited response. We need clear evidence that one person would say yes and the other would say no, and there is too much room for doubt here.
Answer C: This is the correct answer. Nick's argument is based on the idea that accepting a donation does place the university under an obligation to the donor, while Pedro argues against that very idea, saying it does not do so. Nick would say yes, Pedro would say no, and we have sufficient proof, based solely on the text, that this is the point at issue.
Answer D: This answer sets up a sort of sliding scale of gratitude, with long time donors deserving more than to newer donors. As neither of our speakers advance any such idea, and the stimulus says nothing about any such a comparison or indeed about any new donors, this answer is a loser.
Answer E: This brings new information that is completely unknown from the stimulus. It is unclear whether any bids have yet been submitted, let alone about whose is the most competitive. Due to this new information, not allowed when dealing with questions in the Prove family, this too must be rejected as a loser.
