I feel that both C and E are necessary.
If you negate (C):
Different corporations do not have different core core corporate philosophies.
Well if that were inserted into the argument, it would destroy its conclusion of "sometimes a business can survive only by becoming a different corporation.
The stimulus is:
Survive ---> Adapt
Sometimes, adapt ---> Change core corporate philosophy
Therefore, sometimes, survive ---> becoming different corporation
So, the assumption is: change core corporate philosophy ---> become different corporation
And this is what E states and I agree that this is a correct answer.
However, isn't C also necessary? Isn't necessary for the different corporations to have different philosophies? If they did not have the different philosophies, there would be no change!
Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:07 pm
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:20 am
They could have identical philosophies, but they might still need to change. The businesses are different.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests