Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 02 Oct 2014, 04:46

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 98
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 1

Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was [#permalink] New post 18 May 2010, 09:31
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

50% (03:19) correct 50% (01:56) wrong based on 2 sessions
Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was ordered to make restitution to a company because of a bungled construction job, even though the company had signed a written agreement prior to entering into the contract that the contractor would not be financially liable should the task not be adequately performed. Thus, it was morally wrong for the company to change its mind and seek restitution.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the ethicist’s reasoning?
(A) It is morally wrong for one party not to abide by its part of an agreement only if the other party abides by its part of the agreement.
(B) It is morally wrong to seek a penalty for an action for which the agent is unable to make restitution.
(C) It is morally wrong for one person to seek to penalize another person for an action that the first person induced the other person to perform.
(D) It is morally wrong to ignore the terms of an agreement that was freely undertaken only if there is clear evidence that the agreement was legally permissible.
(E) It is morally wrong to seek compensation for an action performed in the context of a promise to forgo such compensation.

From 2 guide books, there are 2 different answers: (B) and (E); which is more correct? I am incline to (E), just to confirm . . . .
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 298
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

Re: Ethics [#permalink] New post 18 May 2010, 10:57
ohfred wrote:
Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was ordered to make restitution to a company because of a bungled construction job, even though the company had signed a written agreement prior to entering into the contract that the contractor would not be financially liable should the task not be adequately performed. Thus, it was morally wrong for the company to change its mind and seek restitution.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the ethicist’s reasoning?
(A) It is morally wrong for one party not to abide by its part of an agreement only if the other party abides by its part of the agreement.
(B) It is morally wrong to seek a penalty for an action for which the agent is unable to make restitution.
(C) It is morally wrong for one person to seek to penalize another person for an action that the first person induced the other person to perform.
(D) It is morally wrong to ignore the terms of an agreement that was freely undertaken only if there is clear evidence that the agreement was legally permissible.
(E) It is morally wrong to seek compensation for an action performed in the context of a promise to forgo such compensation.

From 2 guide books, there are 2 different answers: (B) and (E); which is more correct? I am incline to (E), just to confirm . . . .


E makes more sense. Nowhere in the argument it has been mentioned that the agent(contractor) was unable to pay the restitution.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 May 2010
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

Re: Ethics [#permalink] New post 18 May 2010, 11:34
IMO is E.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1561
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 214 [0], given: 6

Re: Ethics [#permalink] New post 19 May 2010, 07:53
but where was the promise made to forego the compensation.... (as said in option E)
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 May 2010
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

Re: Ethics [#permalink] New post 19 May 2010, 12:24
"even though the company had signed a written agreement prior to entering into the contract that the contractor would not be financially liable should the task not be adequately performed".

This part of the argument can be interpreted as the 'promise'
Re: Ethics   [#permalink] 19 May 2010, 12:24
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Experts publish their posts in the topic decision sidworld 4 30 Oct 2013, 11:03
Experts publish their posts in the topic Working as a Contractor shellarun 5 16 May 2010, 19:38
Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was ohfred 10 09 May 2010, 07:09
Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was skg 19 10 Oct 2009, 05:35
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic A contractor combined -GMATPrep shobuj40 5 30 Jan 2009, 11:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.