Reading Comprehension

PT108 · S1 · P3 · Q21 Morality of Corporations

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Many people complain about corporations, but there are also those whose criticism goes further and who hold corporations morally to blame for many of the problems in Western society.

Topic

Whether corporations have moral responsibilities, and whether a CEO's only obligation is to maximize profits for owners.

Framework

Present Debate. The author presents the economists' position (CEOs should maximize profit; this serves the public good) and then argues against it, defending a moral-responsibility view.

Main Point

The economists are wrong: pursuing maximum profit does not always benefit the public, and a CEO's legal duty to owners does not override their moral responsibility to act for the public good.

P1: Setting up the debate

Some critics blame corporations morally for societal problems, including the basic practice of profit-maximizing without regard to the public good. Economists respond that this misapplies ethical principles to economic relationships.

P2: How responsibility actually works

Corporations aren't persons — their morality is the aggregated morality of the people who act on the corporation's behalf. In larger corporations, the CEO has a fiduciary obligation to the syndicate of owners.

P3: The economists' position

Economists say a CEO's sole responsibility is to the owners (whose primary interest is profit). Even if a CEO isn't obligated to maximize profits, the economists claim profit-maximizing is best for the public anyway.

21.

The primary purpose of the passage is to

  1. illustrate a paradox

    Bad Match: paradox

    This doesn't seem to line up with "present debate" or "challenge position". Was there a central paradox to this passage? Doesn't seem like it.

    16% picked this

  2. argue for legal reform

    Out of Scope: legal reform

    Our author is only hear to shoot down crappy arguments from the economists. She didn't write this passage and propose any legal reforms.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    refute a claim

    Why this is right

    This has superficial appeal since "refute a claim" matches well with Challenge Position. Our author first inserts her voice in the final paragraph with a But pivot, saying "the economists' position does not hold up to careful scrutiny". However, we may have qualms with refute being so strong and claim being so singular. It felt more like the author was undermining several claims the economists had made. If we roll back to the beginning of the debate, the economists claim that, "it is flawed to criticize corporate practices as being immoral, because it inappropriately applies ethical principles to economic relationships." The author, in the final paragraph, does seem to refute this claim. It is not flawed to criticize the immorality of corporate practices (be it the immoral decision to dump chemicals into the local water supply to save money / or the morally compromised CEO who didn't have the moral courage to tell her syndicate of owners that she refused to take immoral actions on behalf of the company). Mostly, we'd have to pick this answer because it seems like the best available, even if it seems a little rough around the edges.

    Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    80% picked this

  4. explain a decision

    Out of Scope: decision

    What decision has been made that the author is trying to explain? She presents a debate about whether or not it's coherent to chastise the moral failings of corporations and then offers her take on this debate. No one has decided anything, so there's no decision to explain.

    1% picked this

  5. define a concept

    Wrong Emphasis

    There might be a concept defined here or there, but nothing central to the purpose. The passage wasn't trying to define what it means to have a fiduciary obligation, for example. It was to present and weigh on the debate over whether it's fair to morally criticize the actions of corporations.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free