Columnist: Some people argue that the government should not take over failing private-sector banks because the govern...

Andrew on April 29 at 05:51PM

Answer Choice D

The stimulus gives no indication that banks whose board is appointed by the government or the military are managed well so I don't quite see how B is correct. The stimulus essentially follows that some people believe the government should not take over failing banks because the government doesn't know how to manage them but these people are misconstruing "taking over" because all the government would do is appoint a new board in the same way they appoint heads of the military. So the argument seems to be confined to the propriety of the government assuming ownership of banks and how well these institutions are managed is never mentioned so I don't see how we can reject that. I selected this answer by PoE but I'd rather not do that and really understand why the right answer is right especially on a question this early.

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil on May 5 at 12:51AM

This question feels unfortunately apt at the moment. I agree the argument doesn't explicitly say that the military is well managed, however let's look at the overall argument.

Bank ownership isn't bad because bank ownership would be similar management to the military. While there's a pretty clear flaw here (they never stated that the military is well managed) the author is clearly relying on the premise that the military is well managed. Given that this is a necessary assumption of the argument, the author clearly must agree with the idea that the military is at least decently managed, because otherwise we would have no reason to think that banks would be well managed. D looks like the opposite of a conclusion that the argument was leading up to.

Andrew on May 6 at 01:36AM

Thank you Emil