Speaker: Contemporary business

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: government institutions0% picked this

   Government institutions are as subject to the Iron Law of Responsibility

   This argument is only about what businesses should do, so bringing in governments seems to have no bearing on the conclusion.

   0%
2. B

   Correct60% picked this

   Public relations programs can cause society to consider an institution socially responsible even when

   Why this is right

   Woohoo, this was our second guess. If we can have a PR firm convince the public that we're acting responsibly, even while we're not, then there's no reason we have to act responsibly to retain power. The last premise was a conditional, playing off the trigger word "when". Conditional logic is pretty rare on Strengthen / Weaken, but generally if we see it, we would strengthen the argument by making it seem more like the rule will get triggered and we would weaken the argument by making it seem like the rule will not get triggered. This answer choice is suggesting the trigger will not happen (society will not be thinking that we're not using power responsibly), so it won't act to reduce our power. FOOTNOTE: This is a pretty cynical LSAT problem! They're asking us to use our legal thinking to counsel a business into not acting responsibly, since you can fool the public into thinking you're a responsible corporate behavior via clever PR.

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   60%
3. C

   No Impact / Too Weak12% picked this

   The power of some institutions erodes more slowly than the power of others, whether they are

   This is a classic pattern for wrong answers on Strengthen and Weaken: things change things fluctuate differences exist It's a very wishy-washy thought that has no clear helping or hurting words in it. This answer essentially says that power erodes at different rates for different companies, regardless of whether they act responsibly. That might seem to weaken by making it seem like acting responsibly is irrelevant to retaining power, but it's phrased incredibly weakly by using "some" language. It's only saying that that acting socially responsible has not always fully dictated the speed at which a company's power eroded (since there's been at least some cases in which power eroded at different rates, unrelated to social responsibility).

   12%
4. D

   No Impact3% picked this

   Since no institution is eternal, every business will

   The conclusion isn't about holding onto power forever, just "as long as it can", so pointing out that businesses, like humans, are all one day going to fail is not any sort of objection. The author's conclusion allows for the concept that a business can't hold onto power indefinitely, just "as long as it can".

   3%
5. E

   Too Weak24% picked this

   Some businesses that have used power in socially responsible ways have

   Answers that use "some / sometimes / not always" are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, where we want strongly worded, impactful answers. This just says, "there was at least one business that used power in socially responsible ways and lost it". Cool. That doesn't hurt the author's argument. He never promised that any company that uses power in a socially responsible way will never lose it.

   24%