Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardIdentifying Main Conclusions

The contemporary legal framework surrounding corporate personhood ought to be stripped of its provisions protecting corporate political speech. It is true that some form of corporate personhood is practically necessary; without it, companies could not enter into enforceable contracts or face civil liability. However, the legal capacity to participate in commerce does not logically necessitate the granting of political rights, which were historically intended solely to secure the democratic participation of natural persons. Furthermore, since a business entity cannot vote, face incarceration, or hold public office, attributing civic expression rights to corporations fundamentally conflates economic utility with civic identity.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion drawn in the argument?

  1. The legal doctrine of corporate personhood should no longer include protections for political speech.Answer
  2. B
    Attributing political expression rights to corporations fundamentally conflates economic utility with civic identity.
  3. C
    Corporate personhood is a necessary legal construct that allows companies to engage in commerce and be held civilly liable.
  4. D
    The historical intent behind political rights was exclusively to secure the democratic participation of natural persons.
  5. E
    Because corporations cannot participate in democratic processes, they should not be granted any form of corporate personhood.

Answer

The main conclusion is that the legal framework of corporate personhood should no longer protect corporate political speech.
The argument is structured to prove one primary, overarching claim: that the legal framework for corporate personhood ought to be stripped of its provisions protecting corporate political speech. Every other statement in the passage—including the concession about the necessity of corporate personhood for commerce, the historical intent of political rights, and the judgment that attributing political rights conflates economic and civic identity—serves directly or indirectly to support this opening recommendation. Therefore, the first sentence is the main conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structure of the argument to separate premises, subsidiary conclusions, and the main conclusion.
The argument begins with a normative claim about what the legal framework ought to be. The rest of the passage consists of a concession followed by reasons why the initial claim is true.
Identifying the structural role of each sentence is necessary to locate the ultimate point of the passage.
2
Evaluate the relationship between the first sentence and the final sentence.
The final sentence concludes that granting political rights conflates economic and civic identity. This judgment serves as a reason WHY the political speech provisions ought to be stripped.
In arguments with multiple conclusions, the main conclusion is the one that is supported by the other conclusion(s) and supports nothing else.
3
Match the identified main conclusion to the answer choices.
The correct option paraphrases the first sentence, stating that the legal doctrine of corporate personhood should no longer include protections for political speech.
The correct answer to a Main Conclusion question must accurately capture the meaning of the argument's ultimate conclusion without adding outside information.

Key Concept

In complex arguments, the main conclusion may appear at the very beginning of the stimulus, with the final sentence serving only as an intermediate conclusion that supports the opening claim.
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Main Conclusions

More questions from this topic