PrepTest 129

Incorrect. The conclusion is relative—"more ethical behavior"—so it's not assuming that anything is always true.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't conclude that business schools should make teaching ethical behavior their top priority, just that they can teach in a way to promote that behavior.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Risky people tend to have fewer ethics. People who want others to like them tend to have more ethics. The more ethics you have, the more ethical you behave. Therefore, business schools can promote ethical behavior by teaching people to avoid risk and desire acceptance.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever an argument starts off with a study, our first thoughts should be sampling flaws and, if there's a causal conclusion, correlation/causation flaws.

For the sampling flaw, there's no reason to believe that the sample size wasn't big enough or representative. It doesn't really discuss the sample much at all! Since it doesn't dive into details that make the sample suspect, we shouldn't expect the correct answer to do so.

For the correlation/causation flaw, the conclusion is causal—it states that business schools "can promote" something. Before we even got there, however, we should have started to think it was heading in that direction since it states, multiple times, that people with one characteristic "tend to" have another characteristic, which is a correlation. Since the argument jumps from characteristics being correlated to a conclusion that a school can promote a set of characteristics by teaching the other, this argument commits a correlation/causation flaw, and the correct answer should reflect that.

Answer Explanation:
The study shows people that have certain characteristics "tend to" have others (risk-seeking/fewer ethics; desire for acceptance/more ethics), and from that, it concludes that teaching people to desire acceptance and not seek risks will result in them behaving more ethically. That's a jump from a correlation to a causation, and so this answer reflects the flaw in the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Studies most frequently have sampling flaws and correlation/causation flaws. When you start to see correlative language early on (e.g., "tend to"), you should expect a causal conclusion.

Incorrect. Ignoring any difference between morality and ethics, the argument doesn't use popular opinion on actions to determine their morality in the stimulus—it notes that certain behavior is ethical as a fact, not based on what people believe about those actions.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of business schools until the conclusion, so this argument can't possibly be circular.