#26 - People should patronize businesses that meet high

[andy12]

I incorrectly selected C - is the reason that is incorrect because "not very high" does not equal "high", or "its" standards vs. "high" standards? I was thinking if a business set their ethical standards to be easily achievable (and not actually that high), they could get the credit without actually meeting high ethical standards.

I see now how B specifically targets the stimulus in that it could be one "notably ethical action" (or non-action), but is there anything else I can watch out for in a late-section tricky (for me, at least) question?

Thanks!!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Andy,

Answer C actually has both of the problems that you mentioned. First "not very high" does not equal "high." In fact, it suggests average or even low. (For example, if someone says that they "didn't do very well" on a test, that is usually an understatement/euphemism for they did poorly.)

In addition, whether a business meets its own low ethical standards is irrelevant because the argument in the stimulus is only about high ethical standards in an absolute sense. For example, if a restaurant is really proud of itself for not poisoning a customer this week, that probably wouldn't qualify as meeting the high ethical standards mentioned in the argument.

What Answer B is really addressing is that if meeting ethical standards mostly involves refraining from unethical behavior, then there really wouldn't be many notable ethical actions for the news to report. For example, the news isn't likely to report that a business hasn't violated the law this year because that generally isn't really newsworthy.