PrepTest 130

Incorrect. The argument establishes that "sometimes" a business can't adapt without a change to philosophy, and businesses have to adapt to survive, but it's an increase in degree to state that "[n]o business" can survive without a change in philosophy. Even if we remove the degree issue (i.e., treat this answer as if it states "Some businesses . . . "), this connection has already been established in the stimulus and thus isn't an assumption.

Incorrect. The stimulus is about businesses that are "no longer" efficient and not just less efficient.

Incorrect. This answer choice connects philosophies to identity, so it's in the ballpark of a correct answer. However, while the argument does rely on a change of core corporate philosophy as changing the business identity, it doesn't require that all different corporations have different philosophies. It's possible that all corporations have one of five different core philosophies, and changing from one to another changes identity. In this world, corporations could share philosophies while still becoming different corporations when switching between these limited philosophies.

Incorrect. This answer is the negation of the answer we're looking for, where changing a philosophy changes identity.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Businesses must adapt to survive, but some can't without changing their core philosophy, so some businesses can't survive without becoming a different corporation.

Answer Anticipation:
First, note the analogy thrown into the first sentence. The argument does compare businesses to species, but then it doesn't go anywhere with it. Since the analogy/comparisons doesn't impact the logic, it will at most play into an incorrect answer.

With that out of the way, we can dig into the logic of the question itself. Starting at the pivot—where the real argument generally begins—we can see an argument with a single premise and a single conclusion . The argument establishes in the premise that, to survive, some corporations need to change their core corporate philosophies. From that, it jumps to a conclusion about those businesses becoming a different corporation.

That's a jump between key terms. There's no indication that a business that has changed its core philosophy is, in fact, a different corporation. Maybe it's possible to adopt a new core philosophy and be the same business. The argument, however, relies on that not being the case, so the correct answer should connect a change of philosophies to being a new business, or a business can't be the same business if it has a different core philosophy.

Answer Explanation:
This answer makes the connection that the argument requires in order to work. If a business can change its core corporate philosophy without becoming a different corporation, then the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Always be on the lookout for new terms that show up in the conclusion but not the premises. When this happens, the argument must be shifting between terms, and identifying where that gap is will help you quickly get to the correct answer connecting those ideas. This works in almost any question type.