I think it's a mistake to not notice that paragraph 2 accepts the idea of corporate responsibly to the public good. Economists do not necessarily accept this premise. I think paragraph two gives away the authors opinion and makes the inevitability of this paragraph abundantly obvious.
I did not mean to be rude when questioning your evaluation of the passage, and hope it did not come off that way. I was a bit inarticulate in my language but my point was about accepting that corporate responsibility is a real thing. Here's how I read the 1st and 2nd paragraphs.
I think the first paragraph lays out one position that says basic corporate practices based on profit motives instead of the public good is bad.
BasicPracticeBasedonProfitMotive → Bad
The economists say this argument is flawed because these are economic decisions and thus cannot be judged ethically.
The second paragraph responds by laying out the existence of the idea of corporate responsibility. It basically says “Here is how we can attribute morality to corporations”
By doing that it's saying "ethical principles can be involved in economic relationships.” It’s denying the economists' premise in full.
EconomicRelationship & JudgedEthically.
My point in my original post was that affirming that corporate responsibility is a real thing denies the economists' argument or least that's how I read it. I would be interested in your feedback as you are more skilled at this than me and I'm always interested in opportunities to improve my skills. Thanks.
No offense taken -- I'm genuinely curious. I like engaging with substantive questions, particularly if they seem to bring up an angle I hadn't considered.
Your interpretation does make sense to me -- I don't think it's unreasonable. Still, the reason I didn't initially interpret it that way is that I didn't see the second paragraph as squarely addressing the same issue that the economists raised in their response in the first paragraph.
The economists say, "ethical principles shouldn't apply to economic relationships." I don't know whether the reason economists say this is that they don't think corporations can bear moral responsibility. In retrospect, that's a reasonable possibility. However, I think it's just as reasonable to think the economists don't believe ethical principles should apply simply because we're dealing with economic relationships. In the same way that we might think economics shouldn't matter when it comes to personal romantic relationships, the economists might think that there are certain realms in which ethics just aren't a consideration.
That's why when we shift to the next paragraph, and the author raises the issue of how corporate responsibility is viewed, I didn't interpret that as a direct (or even indirect) rejection of the economists' position in the first paragraph.
Does that make sense?
In addition, when the author says "It is only by extension that we attribute the quality of morality to corporations," I didn't interpret that as an endorsement of this view. The "we," to me, is a reference to society generally. So I took this statement as a description of how society takes the view that corporations can be morally responsible. But it's not so clear to me that the author means to say, "and I agree" at this point.
this is not true lol. In "The Social Responsibility Of Business Is To Increase Its Profits," for example, Friedman, like the author in paragraph 2, first explained the idea of a corporation having a social responsibility. unlike this author, however, Friedman proceeded by arguing against that notion.
We can see it changes to the author's opinion because of the transitional language in the first sentence of the final paragraph. "But the economists' position does not hold up under careful scrutiny." This is essentially the same as saying "but the economists are making a bad argument."
start writing them down, slowly try shortening them, and eventually see if you can do it in your head, if not just stick with the shortened written ones.
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.
32 comments
#feedback I like it when the text version of the lesson includes the previous paragraphs of the passage so it's easier to go back and reread them.
The bidet theme continues on haha
Zelda mentioned!!!!
@Elecoo Twilight Princess man
LOZ mentioned
Everyone deserves a bidet.
The author ate the economist up ngl...
Probably needed a hug...chose to take the lsat instead
Kevin's Zelda treasure chest comment makes me want to cancel my 7 Sage subscription and replay BOTW
How do you remember all of these low resolutions without writing it down?
I think it's a mistake to not notice that paragraph 2 accepts the idea of corporate responsibly to the public good. Economists do not necessarily accept this premise. I think paragraph two gives away the authors opinion and makes the inevitability of this paragraph abundantly obvious.
What line in the second paragraph do you think shows the author accepts the idea of corporate responsibility to the public good?
I did not mean to be rude when questioning your evaluation of the passage, and hope it did not come off that way. I was a bit inarticulate in my language but my point was about accepting that corporate responsibility is a real thing. Here's how I read the 1st and 2nd paragraphs.
I think the first paragraph lays out one position that says basic corporate practices based on profit motives instead of the public good is bad.
BasicPracticeBasedonProfitMotive → Bad
The economists say this argument is flawed because these are economic decisions and thus cannot be judged ethically.
BasicPracticeBasedonProfitMotive→/JudgeEthically
Because
BasicPracticeBasedonProfitMotive→EconomicRelationship→/JudgedEthically
The second paragraph responds by laying out the existence of the idea of corporate responsibility. It basically says “Here is how we can attribute morality to corporations”
By doing that it's saying "ethical principles can be involved in economic relationships.” It’s denying the economists' premise in full.
EconomicRelationship & JudgedEthically.
My point in my original post was that affirming that corporate responsibility is a real thing denies the economists' argument or least that's how I read it. I would be interested in your feedback as you are more skilled at this than me and I'm always interested in opportunities to improve my skills. Thanks.
No offense taken -- I'm genuinely curious. I like engaging with substantive questions, particularly if they seem to bring up an angle I hadn't considered.
Your interpretation does make sense to me -- I don't think it's unreasonable. Still, the reason I didn't initially interpret it that way is that I didn't see the second paragraph as squarely addressing the same issue that the economists raised in their response in the first paragraph.
The economists say, "ethical principles shouldn't apply to economic relationships." I don't know whether the reason economists say this is that they don't think corporations can bear moral responsibility. In retrospect, that's a reasonable possibility. However, I think it's just as reasonable to think the economists don't believe ethical principles should apply simply because we're dealing with economic relationships. In the same way that we might think economics shouldn't matter when it comes to personal romantic relationships, the economists might think that there are certain realms in which ethics just aren't a consideration.
That's why when we shift to the next paragraph, and the author raises the issue of how corporate responsibility is viewed, I didn't interpret that as a direct (or even indirect) rejection of the economists' position in the first paragraph.
Does that make sense?
In addition, when the author says "It is only by extension that we attribute the quality of morality to corporations," I didn't interpret that as an endorsement of this view. The "we," to me, is a reference to society generally. So I took this statement as a description of how society takes the view that corporations can be morally responsible. But it's not so clear to me that the author means to say, "and I agree" at this point.
this is not true lol. In "The Social Responsibility Of Business Is To Increase Its Profits," for example, Friedman, like the author in paragraph 2, first explained the idea of a corporation having a social responsibility. unlike this author, however, Friedman proceeded by arguing against that notion.
Do we know this paragraph is the author's opinion simply because they don't say anything like, for example, "the economists argue that..."?
The last two passages I have missed when we switch to the author's POV. Wondering if I'm missing something.
When statements are made that aren't attributed to other sources, this means the author's voice is shining through.
We can see it changes to the author's opinion because of the transitional language in the first sentence of the final paragraph. "But the economists' position does not hold up under careful scrutiny." This is essentially the same as saying "but the economists are making a bad argument."
This passage hitting different post Luigi
I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING
someone get Kevin a bidet !
got a 5/5 on this text! wuuuuu
Should these low-resolution summaries be in our heads or written on scrap paper?
start writing them down, slowly try shortening them, and eventually see if you can do it in your head, if not just stick with the shortened written ones.
caring for the public good ---> tax funded bidets
Kevin for president 🗣️ we need those bidets!!!
Zelda reference I feel seen
Duh nuh nuh NUH!
<3
the connection between bidet and patriotism is unquestionable
OK I admit it! I was wrong three paragraphs ago! Author was using a tone to lure me into a sense of false fiscal responsibility
Your references to the bidet and "because that's what American's deserve!" is killing me lol