Q8 - Prominent business executives often play

[geverett]

I chose answer B on my PT, but think it kind of sucks.

Even if Military leaders are generally no more comfortable with power sharing the argument only makes the statement that the majority of people running for President have been lawyers, military, leaders, or full-time politicians. We can only conclude from this that some military leaders have ran for President. But those military leaders who have ran for President might not be the ones who are generally no more comfortable with power sharing. Admittedly it's a much better answer choice than the other four, but it's still pretty weak. Thoughts?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

We can only conclude from this that some military leaders have ran for President. But those military leaders who have ran for President might not be the ones who are generally no more comfortable with power sharing.

Based on answer choice (B), we should be able to infer that the characteristic is true of military leaders in general. The answer choice does not imply that it is true for some and not for others. So, if military leaders have the same characteristic that the argument says represents the reason why business executives do not run and yet military leaders do, that would like providing the cause without the effect, undermining the argument's causal relationship - that not being comfortable with compromises and power-sharing causes business executives not to seek the position of president.

Notice that answer choice (B) is also the strongest of all the answer choices. Generally is more like "most." Whereas each of the other answer choices represent "some" statements.

Let's take a look at the incorrect answers:

(A) doesn't address the cause and effect relationship directly. Had the argument said that only business executives played a role in the fundraising and back-room strategies this would have been a stronger answer choice.
(C) is irrelevant. The argument does not preclude skill sets that fail to completely overlap.
(D) would weaken the claim that politicians don't go into business, but does not weaken that business executives do not go into politics. Additionally, this answer choice doesn't suggest any reasons for why, which is at the heart of the argument.
(E) is irrelevant. We are concerned with who runs for political office and why - not who is engaged in the fundraising.

Does that make sense? If you think of this one as a positing a cause and effect relationship, you can approach from the standard approach for weakening:

1. provide an example of an alternative cause
2. provide an example of the presumed cause without the presumed effect
3. provide an example of the presumed effect without the presumed cause

Answer choice (B) gives us the 2nd option.

[WaltGrace1983]

I was hesitating between (B) and (D) for the same reasons posted above, I really didn't like the "generally." However, I think I figured out why I was having such difficulty with these two answer choices. If we are supposed to weaken the proposed explanation, we are not weakening the idea that "It is understandable [why] Prominent business executives...actually seek to become presidents themselves." Instead, we are weakening the idea that the reason is because "Business executives tend to be uncomfortable with compromises and power-sharing, which are inherent in politics." Correct?

(D) doesn't weaken because it doesn't show why. It would have been a lot stronger if it said something like, "Some former presidents have engaged in business ventures after leaving office because ________" but even then it would be hard to fit that into where the answer choice invariably wants to go.

(B) does weaken because it gives us a little bit of ammunition to not believe the explanation. If we say that military leaders generally aren't comfortable with compromises and power-sharing yet they have also became presidents, it would perhaps that show an alternative explanation, not the explanation given by the argument.

Just to clarify though, we could have also given an alternative cause more specifically, right? A correct answer would seem to be something like "Business executives are typically poor public speakers though exceptional public speaking skills are a requirement to become a presidential candidate." eh?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Great thoughts, WaltGrace1983!

First, you're exactly right that the conclusion of this argument (and therefore what we are weakening) is that the discomfort with compromises and power-sharing is the explanation for the lack of biz-prez peeps, and (D) doesn't do a thing to that explanation!

I'd like you to consider another issue with (D), though, even if you had read the conclusion the wrong way. Notice that our information in the stimulus is not simply about people engaged in business ventures - rather, it's about prominent business executives, and the personality and skills that drive success in business.

The connection (D) attempts to make is between Presidents and simply engaging in business ventures - no one said they were successful at them!

And lastly, absolutely, a correct answer could potentially have given us an alternative plausible cause for the why the prominent business executives aren't angling for the Oval Office.

Keep up the great work!

[MeenaV936]

But doesn't D show that if politicians DO go into business, then the two groups do have compatible skills, weakening the idea that business leaders don't go into politics because the two groups don't have compatible skills?

[ohthatpatrick]

Most importantly, if you're picking an answer on Strengthen or Weaken that starts with "some", you better have verified that ALL the answers are worthless.

Some = at least one

It has almost no significant impact on any discussion. It's only if you're fighting a universal claim that "some" would have any impact.

If I say "All cakes are delicious",
you can weaken that by saying "some cakes are called urinal cakes". (gross, sorry)

But if I say "the great majority of cakes are delicious",
then it has no weakening effect for you to say "some cakes are made from worms and dirt".

I never said ALL, so your pointing out a putative exception is perfectly compatible with my original claim.

So on this problem, you could get rid of (D) for a few reasons:
1. the author said "a great majority of people trying to be President have been non-business. Few business execs seek to become president". So the quantity of "some" couldn't possibly hurt those claims.

2. The correct answer says "generally", which means "most", in more than half of cases. So a different answer is available with more punching power.

3. The argument is about whether business execs would be comfortable being President, not whether former Presidents would be comfortable later going into business (the professional life of a former-President is meaningfully different from that of the average person, so we can't really generalize anything from this).

4. The argument is about whether Prominent / successful business executives would be comfy trying to be President. When (D) talks about these former presidents, it just says they "engage in business ventures". That could mean they shovel your driveway or mow your lawn for $20. We have no reason to think that any former President has ever been a successful or prominent business executive.

hope this helps

[ZLG870]

But doesn't D show that if politicians DO go into business, then the two groups do have compatible skills, weakening the idea that business leaders don't go into politics because the two groups don't have compatible skills?

Actually, I thought in the same way at first, but then I realised it wasn't like that. Besides what ohthatpatrick has said, we wanna give further information. Suppose that politicans can become successful executives ( I know D shows engaging in business ventures, which is different from becoming prominent business executives), maybe because politicians have a wider interpersonal network. These resources can be transferred to the business world. However, the stimulus has pointed out that the most important skill in the political sphere is coordination, a requirement which is not met by a lot of business executives. The essential skills in these two spheres are not necessarily the same. Therefore, that A can be B is not related to the fact that B cannot be A at all.
Hope this can help