Pamela: Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for children, because those children will be the cust...

Naz on January 15, 2014

Let's first analyze how Lee objects to Pamela. Pamela's argument is as follows: Businesses should adopt policies that facilitate parenting because those children will be the customers, employees, and managers of the future. Lee objects to Pamela by explaining: no single company, however, is patronized, staffed, and managed only by its own employees' children. So, if other companies are not enabling employees to care for children, it would not be to the advantage of an individual company to provide such benefits.

Ultimately, Lee is telling Pamela that since the whole is not doing something, a part of that whole would have no advantage in doing it alone. Answer choice (B) has the same argument-to-objection structure. The argument states that humanity (the whole) needs clean air to breathe, and so each person (a part) should make an effort to avoid polluting the air. The objection states that since others are are not avoiding polluting the air, "it makes no sense to act alone to curb air pollution." As in the stimulus, you see that the objection is saying since the whole is not doing something, a part of that would would have no advantage in doing it alone.

Hope that was helpful! Let us know if you have any other questions!

Batman on January 19, 2014

Thank you so much ^^

zacharylouiskane@gmail.com on June 1, 2020

For answer B I also made the quick inference that the first passage was talking about society as a whole and that they should do and the objection states that its an individual bases for something just like we saw in the stimulus