- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:17 am
#22914
Complete Question Explanation
Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (A)
The oil company representative argues that since his company is spending such a comparatively large sum of money on cleaning up the oil spill his company just caused, his company has demonstrated concern for the environment.
Of course, you should question whether a company might better have demonstrated concern by avoiding the oil-spill in the first place.
The environmentalist counters the company representative by claiming since negative media coverage would hurt sales, and since the company simply has to engage in cleaning up in order to avoid negative coverage, the company has no concern for the environment. Essentially the environmentalist argues that environmental concern was not a cause for the oil company's actions.
The problem with the environmentalist's conclusion is that there is often more than one explanation for or cause of a person's or company's actions. Just because the company might engage in its actions merely to save face does not prove that the company could not have other motivations as well.
Since the question asks us to justify the environmentalist's conclusion, we should attempt to prove that the company was not motivated by concern for the environment, by eliminating it as a potential cause.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. It very simply eliminates the possibility that the oil company could have more than one motive. Since the premises in the stimulus already establish that maintaining public appearances is a motive, it would now be impossible for environmental concerns to be a causal factor.
Answer choice (B): This choice makes it seem more likely that the media coverage would be negative without the cleanup efforts, because if oily otters are bad for business, certainly dead ones might be worse. However, that does not mean that the environment could not have been a motivating factor, and in some ways makes it even more likely that the company might also have cared about the environment, so answer choice (B) is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): Even if the company shows high regard for profits in its decision making, the company could still care about the environment, so this answer choice does not prove that the company had no concern for the environment, and is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): The government is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You should remember that even though the correct answers to strengthen, assumption, and justify conclusions often involve information the stimuli have not mentioned, the information should still be tangential to the stimulus. Furthermore, if one allows for the introduction of "government," answer choice (D) actually offers more support for the oil company representative than for the environmentalist, because it suggests that the company's expenditures were unnecessary, so this choice is wrong.
Answer choice (E): This choice is about the success, or effect of the efforts, but the real issue was about the motivation, or the cause of the efforts. The success of the efforts establishes nothing about the motivation for the efforts, and you should not assume that success indicated a greater commitment.
Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (A)
The oil company representative argues that since his company is spending such a comparatively large sum of money on cleaning up the oil spill his company just caused, his company has demonstrated concern for the environment.
Of course, you should question whether a company might better have demonstrated concern by avoiding the oil-spill in the first place.
The environmentalist counters the company representative by claiming since negative media coverage would hurt sales, and since the company simply has to engage in cleaning up in order to avoid negative coverage, the company has no concern for the environment. Essentially the environmentalist argues that environmental concern was not a cause for the oil company's actions.
The problem with the environmentalist's conclusion is that there is often more than one explanation for or cause of a person's or company's actions. Just because the company might engage in its actions merely to save face does not prove that the company could not have other motivations as well.
Since the question asks us to justify the environmentalist's conclusion, we should attempt to prove that the company was not motivated by concern for the environment, by eliminating it as a potential cause.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. It very simply eliminates the possibility that the oil company could have more than one motive. Since the premises in the stimulus already establish that maintaining public appearances is a motive, it would now be impossible for environmental concerns to be a causal factor.
Answer choice (B): This choice makes it seem more likely that the media coverage would be negative without the cleanup efforts, because if oily otters are bad for business, certainly dead ones might be worse. However, that does not mean that the environment could not have been a motivating factor, and in some ways makes it even more likely that the company might also have cared about the environment, so answer choice (B) is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): Even if the company shows high regard for profits in its decision making, the company could still care about the environment, so this answer choice does not prove that the company had no concern for the environment, and is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): The government is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You should remember that even though the correct answers to strengthen, assumption, and justify conclusions often involve information the stimuli have not mentioned, the information should still be tangential to the stimulus. Furthermore, if one allows for the introduction of "government," answer choice (D) actually offers more support for the oil company representative than for the environmentalist, because it suggests that the company's expenditures were unnecessary, so this choice is wrong.
Answer choice (E): This choice is about the success, or effect of the efforts, but the real issue was about the motivation, or the cause of the efforts. The success of the efforts establishes nothing about the motivation for the efforts, and you should not assume that success indicated a greater commitment.