PrepTest 94+, Section 4, Question 15
Historian: Scholars writing histories of an era's business practices must, of course, analyze the practices and strategies employed by firms of that era. But historians probably study successful firms more frequently than they do unsuccessful firms. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that business histories overestimate the successes of past businesses.
Historian: Scholars writing histories of an era's business practices must, of course, analyze the practices and strategies employed by firms of that era. But historians probably study successful firms more frequently than they do unsuccessful firms. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that business histories overestimate the successes of past businesses.
Historian: Scholars writing histories of an era's business practices must, of course, analyze the practices and strategies employed by firms of that era. But historians probably study successful firms more frequently than they do unsuccessful firms. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that business histories overestimate the successes of past businesses.
Historian: Scholars writing histories of an era's business practices must, of course, analyze the practices and strategies employed by firms of that era. But historians probably study successful firms more frequently than they do unsuccessful firms. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that business histories overestimate the successes of past businesses.
Which one of the following would, if true, most support the historian's argument?
The specific factors that cause businesses to do poorly are often not inferable from historical records of business activity.
Those who study past first-person accounts of business strategies inevitably approach them with certain present-day cultural assumptions.
The many public legal documents that firms have had to file provide a record that is more objective than that provided by the firms' own internal documents.
The records of businesses that have gone bankrupt are destroyed more frequently than the records of other businesses.
Scholars who study businesses of the past are usually trained in the effective techniques of business administration.
Explanations
This historian argues it's reasonable to think that historical accounts of business practices overestimate the successes of past businesses.
Why? Because historians probably study successful businesses more than failures.
Not the worst argument, but not proven by any stretch of the imagination.
We're asked to strengthen it—so, we're team historian. We need to add some evidence making it more likely that we probably overestimate business success in the historical record.
No. This adds no evidence to the argument. If this was true, we'd simply struggled to understand why businesses fail, not whether or not we're overestimating business success.
Nah. Cool story bro, and I'm sure you're right. But this doesn't help me evaluate whether or not we're overestimating business success in the historical record.
Nope. This is a weakener, if anything. If we have solid public documents, we probably don't overestimate business success.
Solid. If bankrupt business records regularly get destroyed, then the historical record is really only being built off of successful businesses to begin with. This is the answer, for sure.
Nah. Cool—scholars understand business administration when they look to the past. How does this help me understand whether we're over- or underestimating business success? It doesn't.
0 Comments