B feels right because the CEO could be thought of as an case study involving an individual in the corporation who could act morally. Additionally, it feels odd to imply (like A does) that the passage's MAIN point is about CEOs, when it seems more like CEOs are used as an example to make a broader point about individuals' moral decisions within a corporation.
@IanLSAT Completely hear where you're coming from on this, and B is most certainly the trap answer here. However, even not taking into account the last lesson where Kevin told us that the answer would be some version of "economists are wrong about CEO's responsibility", we know the main point of this passage, as a debate-style RC question, is the author's view that the economist's position does not hold water. From there, we have to ask "what position is the author referring to?" and then refer to the previous paragraph that states: "The economists argue that a CEO's sole responsibility is to the owners, whose primary interest"... "is the protection of their profits". That is what we are looking to supplement in for the economist's position. Had economists pulled a reverse Citizens United and made their argument "well, corporations don't have a pulse and are not people, so ethics can't be applied here", then I think B would be much more attractive.
So, I think the area that got tripped up here was that the premise in the first paragraph talked about corporations, and while that is important to the debate that happens before the author steps in, the author's argument almost exclusively focuses on the role of CEOs and not the humanity of corporations.
I feel like the best way to attack MP questions is to hunt, in order to avoid getting distracted by other plausible ACs. Thoughts??
In a real-time scenario where I didn't have time to closely analyze AC B and didn't anticipate beforehand, I would have most likely picked the wrong answer.
I took "legally obligated" to mean punishable by law / illegal which made me cross out A even though it seemed like the closest answer otherwise. I assumed this wording was a trap because the passage only said CEOs could be fired / penalized.
Still don't really understand why it was worded that way, because CEOs are not obligated by law to maximize profits. Incredibly frustrating wording.
Coming back to this comment after a trying a few more passages. I really have to get over needing answers to be "perfect" instead of "most accurate" and getting rid of the best answer because I have one small issue to nitpick with it
Something I struggled with when answering this question was not knowing whether the main point revolved around CEOs or corporations... I really could not make my mind! What queues tell you that the passage deals with 'CEOs' over 'corporations'? (while under time pressure obviously) #help
At the beginning of passage 4 the author gives his perspective saying "but the economist position does not hold up under careful scrutiny"
-if we look at the low res. summary of passage 3, we see that the economists say that the CEO needs to look for maximum profit, and while CEO's look for maximum profit they are also serving the public good. That's the position the author is talking about in passage 4.
Passage 2 low res. summary was that the corporations responsibility is based on the individual (aka the CEO's)
Looking back at the authors' perspective we can make the connection that CEO's obligation effect the responsibility of the corporation. Their legal obligation to maximize profits doesn't free them of their moral obligation/responsibility to make sure their actions are still for the public good.
Passage 2 is the key to understanding the CEO's "make up" the corporations and the corporations responsibilities.
Gosh I have such a hard time with Main Points!!! I will try moving forward to really nail down the author's viewpoint better. Here I don't fully get the fact that the author WANTS CEOs to ignore their legal obligations. I just thought that the author thinks economists' views are wrong. Eeek
I immediately ruled out number A since it used the word "legally," and the text only states that CEO's are "bound, by the condition of their employment, to seek profits for the owners." How is this using the term "legally" correctly? Is "contractually obligated" and "legally" interchangeable here?
A contractual obligation is one kind of legal obligation, so yes.
They're not interchangeable, in that a legal obligation is not automatically a contractual one. But if an obligation is contractual, you can describe it as a legal obligation.
Also, notice that the last paragraph does say "business or legal sense."
Will they ask MP questions when there's no authors opinion present? Such as, debate questions that present two-three perspectives but no authors perspective
When doing MP questions like this, should we circle A and move on before reading the rest of the choices? It's a pretty accurate description of our prediction, but like you said it could be improved if it were a little more general/inclusive of other points mentioned. Should we go through each answer choice and confirm there's no better alternative? #feedback
I'm wondering what we should do in this particular question, and what our general approach should be in all future MP (and RC) questions. For LR, for many questions like MBT or necessary assumption it was easy to know that an answer was correct before reading the other choices. What about in RC?
In general I'd at least look at every answer choice in RC, no matter what. This doesn't mean read every answer fully -- many answers might just deserve a glance to confirm that it doesn't sound anything like what you're looking for.
Omg, no wonder I'm getting these main point questions wrong. I thought it always has to be a summary of all the paragraphs... Thank you for this clarification!
Author Attitude is always number one, if the author is barely present then you go based on which critic had more say, then its general summary. The Author is KEY!
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.
31 comments
B feels right because the CEO could be thought of as an case study involving an individual in the corporation who could act morally. Additionally, it feels odd to imply (like A does) that the passage's MAIN point is about CEOs, when it seems more like CEOs are used as an example to make a broader point about individuals' moral decisions within a corporation.
@IanLSAT Completely hear where you're coming from on this, and B is most certainly the trap answer here. However, even not taking into account the last lesson where Kevin told us that the answer would be some version of "economists are wrong about CEO's responsibility", we know the main point of this passage, as a debate-style RC question, is the author's view that the economist's position does not hold water. From there, we have to ask "what position is the author referring to?" and then refer to the previous paragraph that states: "The economists argue that a CEO's sole responsibility is to the owners, whose primary interest"... "is the protection of their profits". That is what we are looking to supplement in for the economist's position. Had economists pulled a reverse Citizens United and made their argument "well, corporations don't have a pulse and are not people, so ethics can't be applied here", then I think B would be much more attractive.
So, I think the area that got tripped up here was that the premise in the first paragraph talked about corporations, and while that is important to the debate that happens before the author steps in, the author's argument almost exclusively focuses on the role of CEOs and not the humanity of corporations.
@IanLSAT B is narrow that is why it is not really a main point.
"the question asks" 👹 "which one of the following"😊...
@JoshuaCosmas @Kevin_Lin alter ego??
yay got this right
I feel like the best way to attack MP questions is to hunt, in order to avoid getting distracted by other plausible ACs. Thoughts??
In a real-time scenario where I didn't have time to closely analyze AC B and didn't anticipate beforehand, I would have most likely picked the wrong answer.
I took "legally obligated" to mean punishable by law / illegal which made me cross out A even though it seemed like the closest answer otherwise. I assumed this wording was a trap because the passage only said CEOs could be fired / penalized.
Still don't really understand why it was worded that way, because CEOs are not obligated by law to maximize profits. Incredibly frustrating wording.
They are obligated by law to maximize profits. Look up fiduciary duty of care.
Coming back to this comment after a trying a few more passages. I really have to get over needing answers to be "perfect" instead of "most accurate" and getting rid of the best answer because I have one small issue to nitpick with it
ok after watching the video I'm seeing the "legal sense" line in the passage. still annoyed by this lol
It just means that it is a contractual obligation. They are bound by that contract if they want to keep their job.
Something I struggled with when answering this question was not knowing whether the main point revolved around CEOs or corporations... I really could not make my mind! What queues tell you that the passage deals with 'CEOs' over 'corporations'? (while under time pressure obviously) #help
At the beginning of passage 4 the author gives his perspective saying "but the economist position does not hold up under careful scrutiny"
-if we look at the low res. summary of passage 3, we see that the economists say that the CEO needs to look for maximum profit, and while CEO's look for maximum profit they are also serving the public good. That's the position the author is talking about in passage 4.
Passage 2 low res. summary was that the corporations responsibility is based on the individual (aka the CEO's)
Looking back at the authors' perspective we can make the connection that CEO's obligation effect the responsibility of the corporation. Their legal obligation to maximize profits doesn't free them of their moral obligation/responsibility to make sure their actions are still for the public good.
Passage 2 is the key to understanding the CEO's "make up" the corporations and the corporations responsibilities.
I hope that was easy to understand lol.
Thank you. This is a very good way of tackling this question. Is RC your best section?
Gosh I have such a hard time with Main Points!!! I will try moving forward to really nail down the author's viewpoint better. Here I don't fully get the fact that the author WANTS CEOs to ignore their legal obligations. I just thought that the author thinks economists' views are wrong. Eeek
Side note: I think it's awesome that Kevin comes in here and answers questions/chimes in on our comments. 5 stars
I immediately ruled out number A since it used the word "legally," and the text only states that CEO's are "bound, by the condition of their employment, to seek profits for the owners." How is this using the term "legally" correctly? Is "contractually obligated" and "legally" interchangeable here?
A contractual obligation is one kind of legal obligation, so yes.
They're not interchangeable, in that a legal obligation is not automatically a contractual one. But if an obligation is contractual, you can describe it as a legal obligation.
Also, notice that the last paragraph does say "business or legal sense."
Will they ask MP questions when there's no authors opinion present? Such as, debate questions that present two-three perspectives but no authors perspective
Yes, they can.
@mohud97221 I think Passage 1 had that situation the main point/purpose of passage was just that theres just a debate about a particular subject.
When doing MP questions like this, should we circle A and move on before reading the rest of the choices? It's a pretty accurate description of our prediction, but like you said it could be improved if it were a little more general/inclusive of other points mentioned. Should we go through each answer choice and confirm there's no better alternative? #feedback
I'm wondering what we should do in this particular question, and what our general approach should be in all future MP (and RC) questions. For LR, for many questions like MBT or necessary assumption it was easy to know that an answer was correct before reading the other choices. What about in RC?
In general I'd at least look at every answer choice in RC, no matter what. This doesn't mean read every answer fully -- many answers might just deserve a glance to confirm that it doesn't sound anything like what you're looking for.
Arguably some CEOs are non-human entities (joke)
I've been thinking about these questions all wrong! It's clicking more after this lesson
Omg, no wonder I'm getting these main point questions wrong. I thought it always has to be a summary of all the paragraphs... Thank you for this clarification!
Same! I could not figure out where I was going wrong, but this makes sooooo much more sense!
Same lol. I always got the MP questions wrong and felt stupid. I feel hope now haha
Author Attitude is always number one, if the author is barely present then you go based on which critic had more say, then its general summary. The Author is KEY!
Would this go for all passages or just for these types of passages?