After several attempts to distract his young parrot from chewing on furniture, George reluctantly took an expert’s advice and gently hit the parrot’s beak whenever the bird started to chew furniture. The bird stopped chewing furniture, but it is now afraid of hands and will sometimes bite. Since chewing on the furniture would not have hurt the bird, George should not have hit it.
When Carla’s puppy escaped from her yard, it bounded into a busy street. Although Carla does not generally approve of physical discipline, she hit the puppy sharply with her hand. Now the puppy enters the street only when accompanied by Carla, so Carla was justified in disciplining the puppy.
Which one of the following principles, if established, would justify the judgments about George’s and Carla’s actions?
(A) When disciplining an animal physically, a trainer
should use an object such as a rolled up newspaper to avoid making the animal frightened of hands. - WRONG. Nothing as such is suggested in the passage. Would not justify using hands.
(B) When training an animal, physical discipline
should be used only when such discipline is necessary to correct behavior that could result in serious harm to the animal. - CORRECT. POE helps. serious harm to animals is good enough a reason for G and C to hit animals.
(C) Using physical discipline to train an animal is justified
only when all alternative strategies for correcting undesirable behavior have failed. - WRONG. Interesting but there are no alternative methods discussed. Had there been even a slight hint of alternatives then this one would have made sense.
(D) Physical discipline
should not be used on immature animals. - WRONG. Since both hit the animals this one would not justify.
(E) Physical discipline
should not be used by an animal trainer except to correct persistent behavior problems. - WRONG. Like D only.
Answer B.
_________________
Pain + Reflection = Progress | Ray Dalio
Good Books to read prior to MBA