Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
30 Dec 2019, 13:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
59% (02:11) correct
41%
(02:26)
wrong
based on 958
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
31 Dec 2019, 06:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
E is the answer.
Premise: 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.
Conclusion: Thus, it was morally wrong for the company to change its mind and seek restitution.
The argument is essentially saying that the actions of the company to seek restitution from the contractor is morally wrong. This is based on the premise that the company and the contractor entered into an agreement that the contractor would not be financially liable should the task not be adequately performed. We are to determine which of the answer choices justifies the reasoning of the Ethicist.
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. A says that the necessary condition for a party to abide by the terms of an agreement is that the other party must abide by its part of the agreement. No, the agreement is that no restitution will be paid by the contractor if the tasks are not performed adequately by the contractor. A is incorrect.
B: It is morally wrong to seek a penalty for an action for which the agent is unable to make restitution. The argument is not about whether an agent is able to make a restitution or not but rather about the terms of the agreement in which the contractor shall not be held financially liable for failure to perform the task adequately. B is incorrect.
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. The Ethicist's argument is not about one person seeking to penalize another person for an induced action, but it's about the moral obligation of both parties to honor the terms of an agreement. C is incorrect.
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. The Ethicist's argument is about the moral obligation of parties of an agreement to honor the terms of an agreement. There should be no condition under which such an agreement should be dishonored. If D is true, then it weakens the argument or undermines the argument by the Ethicist. So, D is also incorrect.
E: It is morally wrong to seek compensation for an action performed in the context of a promise to forgo such compensation. This is correct. This option justifies the argument made by the Ethicist. A promise has been made in the form of an agreement that the company will not seek compensation from the contractor even if the contractor is unable to perform the work satisfactorily, and hence, the company is morally is wrong to seek compensation contrary to the agreement.
Premise: 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.
Conclusion: Thus, it was morally wrong for the company to change its mind and seek restitution.
The argument is essentially saying that the actions of the company to seek restitution from the contractor is morally wrong. This is based on the premise that the company and the contractor entered into an agreement that the contractor would not be financially liable should the task not be adequately performed. We are to determine which of the answer choices justifies the reasoning of the Ethicist.
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. A says that the necessary condition for a party to abide by the terms of an agreement is that the other party must abide by its part of the agreement. No, the agreement is that no restitution will be paid by the contractor if the tasks are not performed adequately by the contractor. A is incorrect.
B: It is morally wrong to seek a penalty for an action for which the agent is unable to make restitution. The argument is not about whether an agent is able to make a restitution or not but rather about the terms of the agreement in which the contractor shall not be held financially liable for failure to perform the task adequately. B is incorrect.
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. The Ethicist's argument is not about one person seeking to penalize another person for an induced action, but it's about the moral obligation of both parties to honor the terms of an agreement. C is incorrect.
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. The Ethicist's argument is about the moral obligation of parties of an agreement to honor the terms of an agreement. There should be no condition under which such an agreement should be dishonored. If D is true, then it weakens the argument or undermines the argument by the Ethicist. So, D is also incorrect.
E: It is morally wrong to seek compensation for an action performed in the context of a promise to forgo such compensation. This is correct. This option justifies the argument made by the Ethicist. A promise has been made in the form of an agreement that the company will not seek compensation from the contractor even if the contractor is unable to perform the work satisfactorily, and hence, the company is morally is wrong to seek compensation contrary to the agreement.
31 Dec 2019, 07:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
ARGUMENT: [con] the customer was morally wrong to seek a refund for a poor job after he signed not to seek a refund if the job wasn't performed as expected.
Ans (E)
