Reading comp PrepTest 108 · Section 1 · Question 19

Passage

Questions 17-21  .        Many people complain about corporations, but  . there are also those whose criticism goes further and Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Social Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • A criticism (corporations are immoral) and economists' rebuttal (corporations are just business relationships)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Many people's criticism:
      • Businesses are immoral and the cause of many problems in Western society (first sentence)
    • Comparison, according to many people:
      • Criticisms of business apply not just when to those that are fraudulent but also to prioritizing profit (second sentence)
    • Economists' rebuttal:
      • This criticism unfairly applies ethical principles to business relationships (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Background information on corporate ownership (corporations are not people, but most are run by CEOs who serve the owners)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • "Corporate responsibility" refers to the combined responsibility of the people in the corporation (second sentence)
    • Comparisons, according ot the author:
      • Corporations are not people (first sentence)
      • Some corporations are run by the owners, but many (and most large) are run by CEOs who have an obligation to the owners (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "only by" (first sentence), "are not" (first sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Premises to economists' rebuttal (CEOs only responsible to owners, but even maximizing profits helps public)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • The economists' view (the rebuttal against the criticism of corporations): CEOs are just doing their job
      • It's the CEO's job to produce profits (first and second sentence)
      • Even if the CEO was only obligated to look to the public good, they would still work to maximize profits because that will also eventually help the public (last sentence)
    • Comparison:
      • A CEO's job for a charitable institution is not simply producing profits, unlike non-charitable corporations (first sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author's criticism of the rebuttal (not all profit-seeking enterprises serve public, CEOs have moral responsibility)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Corporate profit doesn't always lead to public profit (second sentence)
      • Business obligations do not override moral ones (fourth sentence)
        • A CEO could make a case against an immoral practice to owners (fifth sentence)
      • Example of profit-seeking endeavor that harms public
        • A paper mill that decimates forests & pollutes lakes to increase profits (third sentence)
      • Author's attitude: "But" (first sentence), "does not hold up under careful scrutiny" (first sentence), "although there is no doubt" (second sentence), "there is no guarantee—either theoretically or in practice" (second sentence), "It is absurd to deny" (third sentence), "they are not morally paramount" (fourth sentence), "ultimately do not excuse the individual from the responsibility of acting morally" (last sentence)

Main Point: The economists' defense of corporations is ill-founded because corporate profit doesn't always lead to public profit and business obligations do not override moral ones.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1): Criticism of corporations

P1, S3: The economists' rebuttal

P4, S1: The author's response is introduced

Meta-Structure?

Criticizing a Viewpoint: This passage utilizes a Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure.* In such structures, the author describes a view held by another person or group, and then criticizes that view.

In passages that use a Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure, the main point will be the author's central criticism or a summary of the criticisms. We can often find a conclusion in which the author summarizes their criticisms. But since this author doesn't provide such a conclusion, we'll come up with one ourselves. Thus, the main point will be: "The economists' defense of corporations is ill-founded because corporate profit doesn't always lead to public profit and business obligations do not override moral ones."

*As is true for many Criticizing a Viewpoint passages, other Critical Meta-Structures could apply here. Correcting the Record could also certainly describe this passage's argument. You could even use the Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure.

Comparison: This passage’s most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the comparison. The author draws many distinctions throughout the passage (corporations and people, owner-operated and CEO-operated corporations, charitable organizations and corporations, the CEO’s business/legal obligations and moral obligations). At least one of these is bound to be relevant to a question, so having them conveniently highlighted can help us review relevant text when necessary.

Last Thoughts?

Viewpoints in RC are sometimes stacked like onion layers. At the center of this particular passage, we have a view that claims corporations are to blame for many of the problems in Western society. This view is not articulated or expanded upon – it's simply the starting point. Then, the next layer of viewpoint belongs to the economists who think that corporations are absolved from this kind of moral evaluation. This view and the argument behind it are explained. Finally, the center layer of this onion is the author's view that these corporations do, in fact, have moral responsibilities. This view is outlined in the most detail and it represents the main point of the passage. Keeping these views organized and understanding the relationship between them is vital to a complete understanding of this passage.

Question prompt

The conception of morality Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Consult notes and choose the answer choice that ties the author’s evidence to the conclusion the author reaches

Answer Anticipation

First, what even is this question? The phrase “following principle” in the question stem might ring a bell if you’ve been working on Principle questions in Logical Reasoning. This phrase shows up in Following Principle questions in Logical Reasoning and Reading Comp. In these questions, we have to pick the answer choice with the principle — or rule — that connects the author’s evidence to the conclusion the author reaches.Since we are asked about the author’s conception of morality, let’s start by identifying any claims the author makes about morality. As we discussed earlier, the author’s main point is that, despite what economists say, corporations are not absolved from the responsibility of acting morally. The author cites two pieces of evidence for this claim: corporate profit doesn’t always lead to public benefit and business obligations do not override the responsibility of looking out for the public good. Notice how both of these statements relate to a business’s effect on the public good? That’s a good indication that the author thinks the morality of a certain corporation is related to its effect on the public. Let’s see if we can find an answer choice that points out this principle.

Answer choices

  1. A
    What makes actions morally Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this principle connect serving the public benefit to acting morally?

    Yes! The author refutes the claim that CEOs' sole responsibility is to maximize profits by showing that they are morally obligated to serve the public good (P4, S4-5). If the principle in (A) is true, it certainly helps the author make this case!

    This principle would establish that a CEO would have to act to benefit the public to act morally. If a CEO pursued profits in such a manner that would harm the public, then the CEO would be acting immorally. This would ultimately help the author make the case that "the economic consequences that may befall the CEO for" not pursuing harmful profit-making endeavors "do not excuse the individual from the responsibility of acting morally" (P4, S6). In other words, this principle connects morality to the contribution to the public good, which connects the argument’s evidence to its conclusion. (A) is our answer, and we can justifiably select it and move on to the next question.

  2. B
    An action is morally Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this principle connect serving the public benefit to acting morally?

    Nope. The author's argument doesn’t mention anything about risk of personal penalty. (B) is out.

  3. C
    Actions are morally right Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this principle connect serving the public benefit to acting morally?

    Nope. We can cross it off for that reason. Besides, this would actually hurt the author's argument. The author says that it would be immoral for a corporation to "legally maximiz[e] its profits ... by decimating a forest for its wood or polluting a lake with its industrial waste" (P4, S3). (C) would establish that this endeavor would be moral (since it's not illegal), thus undermining the author's claims.

  4. D
    It is morally wrong Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this principle connect serving the public benefit to acting morally?

    No. The author doesn't argue that any attempt to benefit yourself is immoral. The author argues that some attempts to maximize profits are immoral because they harm the public. So, (D) is out.

  5. E
    Actions are not morally Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this principle connect serving the public benefit to acting morally?

    Not in the way we need it to. Translated into an "if-then" statement, this answer choice says, "If an action doesn't harm others, then it's not morally wrong." This wouldn't help the author establish what actions are morally wrong. (Remember, we can only make conclusions about "then" conditions.) This wouldn't help the author establish that actions that detract from the public good are morally wrong. For this reason, (E) is incorrect.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 85%
  2. B 4%
  3. C 1%
  4. D 2%
  5. E 8%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion