PTF97.S1.Q16 - Confused with the Answer

Francescalosh

I am kind of confused as to why the answer for this question is C and not B? I feel like a may be missing the basis of the argument because it seems that it is arguing for groups over individuals and not really having to do with founder v.s. non founder.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

maco4538

So, let's break down the stimulus first.

Conclusion: companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed then those founded by individuals.

Why?

Premise: (because) It is unlikely that a single individual can provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters whereas groups generally can.

The necessary assumption then is that for a company to succeed its founder/s must have the capacity to provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters. Otherwise the premise holds no weight for the conclusion. (This was my preface going into the answer choices).

Now let's talk about why C works and B doesn't.

C: New companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters than if they must secure funding or skills from confounders.

If we negate it, then the argument falls apart.

C negated: new companies are not necessarily more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters than if they must secure funding or skills from non-founders.

Well, if that is the case then an individual could outsource for funding and skills and be just as successful as a group, which would deny the conclusion that companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed then those founded by individuals.

B: Some founding members of successful companies can provide both funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical matters.

The argument would still work even when we negate B.

No founding members of successful companies can provide both funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical matters.

Thats okay because according to the argument no single person has to bring all these things to the table for the company to be successful, this standard is met as a group. So it would not negate the argument that companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed then those founded by individuals. If anything, the negation of B actually strengthens the argument, not destroy it.