Discussion
Which one of the following most accurately expresses
the main conclusion of the economist’s argument?
*This question is included in Sample Lesson Set 1: Basic Questions, question #1
| (A) | If an action taken to secure the survival of a business fails to enhance the welfare of the business’s employees, that action cannot be good for the business as a whole. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 06/04/2011 17:14
I understand why the answer is correct once the conclusion is pointed out for me in this question. Can you please point out why this is the conclusion?
Posted: 06/05/2011 02:52
One way to look at the conclusion is by thinking of it as the "thing an argument is trying to show". So in the case of this argument, you might say "what is the Economist trying to convince me of here?"
Another way to look at it: the conclusion is the statement that depends upon other statements in the argument, but that NO other statement is reliant on. It's the "end of the line" of the logical progression.
So then, back to the argument. Let's take out all of the transition words so we aren't thrown off by them.
We have:
"Every business strives to increase its productivity",
We don't know how this statement is related to all of the others. It could be a conclusion. (The whole argument could be constructed to show that this is true.) But we don't know yet, so let's proceed to the next statement.
"this increases profits for the owners and the likelihood that the business will survive."
This premise certainly supports the first statement. Does this mean that the first statement is actually the conclusion? Is it the end of the argument--the statement that the argument was designed to show true? Let's keep reading.
"Not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole."
Hmm, this kinda comes out of nowhere. This actually seems to contradict the first statement. Let's read on before we decide what to do with this statement.
"Often, attempts to increase productivity decrease the number of employees,"
This is just another statement of fact--clearly a premise. But it seems to be connecting the third statement to the first. Let's keep going.
"which clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees."
This provides justification for the statement that comes out of nowhere. And it clearly connects the latter half of the argument to the first two premises.
So the first two statements are:
1. Every business strives to increase its productivity,
2. This increases profits for the owners and the likelihood that the business will
survive.
And then--kinda out of nowhere--we have:
3. Not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole.
And finally, we have support for 3:
4. Often, attempts to increase productivity decrease the number of employees.
5. [This] clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees.
Statements 1 and 2 set the scene, and statements 4 and 5 provide additional information for consideration. And based on the two sets of statements, we're able to make statement 3. So statement 3 is the conclusion.
One way to look at the conclusion is by thinking of it as the "thing an argument is trying to show". So in the case of this argument, you might say "what is the Economist trying to convince me of here?"
Another way to look at it: the conclusion is the statement that depends upon other statements in the argument, but that NO other statement is reliant on. It's the "end of the line" of the logical progression.
So then, back to the argument. Let's take out all of the transition words so we aren't thrown off by them.
We have:
"Every business strives to increase its productivity",
We don't know how this statement is related to all of the others. It could be a conclusion. (The whole argument could be constructed to show that this is true.) But we don't know yet, so let's proceed to the next statement.
"this increases profits for the owners and the likelihood that the business will survive."
This premise certainly supports the first statement. Does this mean that the first statement is actually the conclusion? Is it the end of the argument--the statement that the argument was designed to show true? Let's keep reading.
"Not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole."
Hmm, this kinda comes out of nowhere. This actually seems to contradict the first statement. Let's read on before we decide what to do with this statement.
"Often, attempts to increase productivity decrease the number of employees,"
This is just another statement of fact--clearly a premise. But it seems to be connecting the third statement to the first. Let's keep going.
"which clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees."
This provides justification for the statement that comes out of nowhere. And it clearly connects the latter half of the argument to the first two premises.
So the first two statements are:
1. Every business strives to increase its productivity,
2. This increases profits for the owners and the likelihood that the business will
survive.
And then--kinda out of nowhere--we have:
3. Not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole.
And finally, we have support for 3:
4. Often, attempts to increase productivity decrease the number of employees.
5. [This] clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees.
Statements 1 and 2 set the scene, and statements 4 and 5 provide additional information for consideration. And based on the two sets of statements, we're able to make statement 3. So statement 3 is the conclusion.
Posted: 12/30/2014 11:23
The issue here is no
where does it say that the employees that left were efficient. What if they were a detriment to business? Considering they left when being asked to increase production actually indicates that they were impeding business. So no where in the passage does it definitively suggest that the business experienced a detriment.
where does it say that the employees that left were efficient. What if they were a detriment to business? Considering they left when being asked to increase production actually indicates that they were impeding business. So no where in the passage does it definitively suggest that the business experienced a detriment.