I think we actually do start to see the author's opinion here. The author specifies in the first paragraph that the people who judge corporations with a moral lens are not just a subset of people, but rather a subset of a subset. "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." thus, in the second paragraph, the "we" in "It is only by extension that we attribute the quality of morality to corporations, for corporations are not persons" cannot therefore be seen as a declaration of a belief or instinctual reaction of people to corporations generally, but of a belief of the sub-subset which that group's membership is defined by. Because the author declares this with "we", he/she is thus indicating membership of this sub-subset, which indicates the author's position.
Current events —- this is why that CEO who was killed is kinda EERIE for me because isn’t he just doing his fiduciary obligation to the actual owners of United Healthcare. I can’t imagine anyone thinking he made decisions that are to HIS BENEFIT.
This sounds to me as though the author takes a position by describing where corporate responsibility actually lies. Though, I guess what makes this context as opposed to an argument is that the author is not exactly describing WHERE corporations HAVE a responsibility?
Corporations ARE persons. How to deal with statements that are factually wrong -do we accept what is in the passage as somebody's incorrect opinion, or accept the wrong thing as if it were true...what to do? Knowing corporations are persons, how do I understand the text after that incorrect statement?
Any tips for getting better at low-res summaries? Mine are always consistent with what they give, but mine are typically slightly more detailed or not so simplified. Granted, my recall has been good using my version, so maybe it isn't something I need to change, but I know every second counts.
This is a little off topic but does anyone have any suggestions on where I can get exposed to passages like these on a daily basis? I need to get used to reading more complex passages/ writings like the ones we see on RC.
I've heard that reading scientific journals and legal journals/reviews are a good way to get yourself used to reading dense material - also these types of passages show up in RC so it can increase your vocabulary in these topics (art is also a popular passage topic). Google Scholar is a good resource to find some free articles/studies with more "sophisticated" writing
Try the Espresso app by the Economist. It's a free version that I think is targeted towards students/young people. They're short passages, a little shorter than RC passages, but still useful!
I'm a little confused in how you can see the change in perspective from the first paragraph to the second. After watching the explanation I just know that I would still look at that first sentence of the second paragraph and associate it with what the economists were saying before the paragraph break.
I was hoping for some #help on this too. I actually interpreted this as the author making this claim, and the author holding this claim to be true. The video says that he is not yet attributing this to the author, but I feel like it is the type of claim that is implied to be believed by the author, since it is separate from the other discussion and it seems like a personal belief. I'm not really sure if I'm explaining it right, but I feel because it is not sandwiched behind "some people argue that," or "it is a commonly held belief that" (or other words to that effect), it is therefore the opinion of the author.
It's associated with what the economists were saying in that it's a similar topic. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Do you mean to say that you think the second paragraph is describing the opinion of the economists? I think the problem with that interpretation is that the second paragraph isn't being attributed to the economists. Notice that it doesn't start with "The economist argue that..." or anything similar.
The author does believe everything in the second paragraph. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, I don't see the second paragraph as taking a side with respect to the debate in the first paragraph; the second paragraph seems more like a setup for additional commentary.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
29 comments
I think we actually do start to see the author's opinion here. The author specifies in the first paragraph that the people who judge corporations with a moral lens are not just a subset of people, but rather a subset of a subset. "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." thus, in the second paragraph, the "we" in "It is only by extension that we attribute the quality of morality to corporations, for corporations are not persons" cannot therefore be seen as a declaration of a belief or instinctual reaction of people to corporations generally, but of a belief of the sub-subset which that group's membership is defined by. Because the author declares this with "we", he/she is thus indicating membership of this sub-subset, which indicates the author's position.
for some reason i read this paragraph as an extension of the economists view - i guess i made an assumption that it would help their argument?
As a European, I have to confess I also love bidets.
Bro loves his bidets
Citizens United v. FEC would like to have a word with you
Current events —- this is why that CEO who was killed is kinda EERIE for me because isn’t he just doing his fiduciary obligation to the actual owners of United Healthcare. I can’t imagine anyone thinking he made decisions that are to HIS BENEFIT.
having trouble coming up with good low-res summaries. Any tips?
This sounds to me as though the author takes a position by describing where corporate responsibility actually lies. Though, I guess what makes this context as opposed to an argument is that the author is not exactly describing WHERE corporations HAVE a responsibility?
i feel like this one DOES kinda make stand with author POV, because of the use of "we"
Corporations ARE persons. How to deal with statements that are factually wrong -do we accept what is in the passage as somebody's incorrect opinion, or accept the wrong thing as if it were true...what to do? Knowing corporations are persons, how do I understand the text after that incorrect statement?
You are so right, yet that is so hard to do!
Any tips for getting better at low-res summaries? Mine are always consistent with what they give, but mine are typically slightly more detailed or not so simplified. Granted, my recall has been good using my version, so maybe it isn't something I need to change, but I know every second counts.
Heh, I love Kevin's humor
This is a little off topic but does anyone have any suggestions on where I can get exposed to passages like these on a daily basis? I need to get used to reading more complex passages/ writings like the ones we see on RC.
I've heard that reading scientific journals and legal journals/reviews are a good way to get yourself used to reading dense material - also these types of passages show up in RC so it can increase your vocabulary in these topics (art is also a popular passage topic). Google Scholar is a good resource to find some free articles/studies with more "sophisticated" writing
Try the Espresso app by the Economist. It's a free version that I think is targeted towards students/young people. They're short passages, a little shorter than RC passages, but still useful!
its crazy how accurately this passage aligns with the Luigi mangiano vs health care coe
Art mirroring life!
Actually pretty glad I took a corporate law class as an elective last semester so I could understand this better
The last part about "fiduciary obligation" is just saying that the CEO has an obligation to act in the best interests of the owners of the company.
What is my low-res summary is a few sentences, or a model. Will this trip me up on the test?
Reading this passage with news about the united Healthcare CEO makes this more interesting to read about
I'm a little confused in how you can see the change in perspective from the first paragraph to the second. After watching the explanation I just know that I would still look at that first sentence of the second paragraph and associate it with what the economists were saying before the paragraph break.
#help
I was hoping for some #help on this too. I actually interpreted this as the author making this claim, and the author holding this claim to be true. The video says that he is not yet attributing this to the author, but I feel like it is the type of claim that is implied to be believed by the author, since it is separate from the other discussion and it seems like a personal belief. I'm not really sure if I'm explaining it right, but I feel because it is not sandwiched behind "some people argue that," or "it is a commonly held belief that" (or other words to that effect), it is therefore the opinion of the author.
It's associated with what the economists were saying in that it's a similar topic. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Do you mean to say that you think the second paragraph is describing the opinion of the economists? I think the problem with that interpretation is that the second paragraph isn't being attributed to the economists. Notice that it doesn't start with "The economist argue that..." or anything similar.
The author does believe everything in the second paragraph. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, I don't see the second paragraph as taking a side with respect to the debate in the first paragraph; the second paragraph seems more like a setup for additional commentary.
this is helpful, thank you :)
Typo in heading of this lesson.
2