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 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.
29 Mar 2016, 05:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
As formal organizations, business corporations are distinguished by their
particular goals, which include maximization of profits, growth, and
survival. Providing goods and services is a means to this end. If, for
example, a number of individuals (outsiders or even insiders) believe that
a company‘s aggressive marketing of infant formula in third world
countries is morally wrong, the company is unlikely to be moved by
arguments based on ethos alone as long as what it is doing remains
profitable. But if those opposed to the company‘s practice organize a
highly effective boycott of the company‘s products, their moral views will
soon enter into the company‘s deliberations indirectly as limiting
operating conditions. They can, at this point, no more be ignored than a
prohibitive increase in the costs of certain raw materials.
Although the concepts and categories of ethics may be applied to the
conduct of corporations, there are important differences between the
values and principles underlying corporate behaviour and those
underlying the actions of most individuals. If corporations are by their
nature end- or goal-directed how can they acknowledge acts as wrong in
and of themselves? Is it possible to hold one criminally responsible for
acts that if performed by a human person would result in criminal
liability?
The first case of this type to achieve widespread public attention was
the attempt to prosecute the Ford Motor Company for manslaughter as
the result of alleged negligent or reckless decision making concerning the
safety engineering of the Pinto vehicle. Although the defendant
corporation and its officers were found innocent after trial, the case can
serve as an exemplar for our purposes.
In essence, the prosecution in this case attempted to show that the
corporation had produced and distributed a vehicle that was known to be
defective at the time of production and sale, and that even after a great
deal of additional information accumulated regarding the nature of the
problems, the corporation took no action to correct them. The obvious
non-corporate analogy would be the prosecution of a person who was
driving a car with brakes known to be faulty, who does not have them
repaired because it would cost too much, and who kills someone when
the brakes eventually fail and the car does not stop in time. Such cases
involving individuals are prosecuted and won regularly.
If corporations have no concept of right or wrong because they are
exclusively goal-directed, can they be convicted in cases of this type, and
what purpose would be served by such a conviction? Perhaps we can
make a utilitarian argument for convicting corporations of such crimes.
The argument would be that of deterrence; conviction and punishment
would deter other corporations from taking similar actions under similar
circumstances. However, there appears to be considerable evidence that
deterrence does not work on corporations, even if, arguably, it works on
individuals. The possibility of being discovered and the potential
magnitude of the fine merely become more data to be included in the
analysis of limiting conditions.
Q- If a company that produced shampoo products opted to stop the routine
testing of its products on animals because it decided that it is wrong to cause
the animals pain, what effect would this have on the argument made in the
passage?
A. It would strongly support the argument.
B. It would support the argument somewhat, but not conclusively.
C. It would neither support nor substantially weaken the argument.
D. It would substantially weaken the argument.
E. It would weaken the argument only if the company is a government
owned company
particular goals, which include maximization of profits, growth, and
survival. Providing goods and services is a means to this end. If, for
example, a number of individuals (outsiders or even insiders) believe that
a company‘s aggressive marketing of infant formula in third world
countries is morally wrong, the company is unlikely to be moved by
arguments based on ethos alone as long as what it is doing remains
profitable. But if those opposed to the company‘s practice organize a
highly effective boycott of the company‘s products, their moral views will
soon enter into the company‘s deliberations indirectly as limiting
operating conditions. They can, at this point, no more be ignored than a
prohibitive increase in the costs of certain raw materials.
Although the concepts and categories of ethics may be applied to the
conduct of corporations, there are important differences between the
values and principles underlying corporate behaviour and those
underlying the actions of most individuals. If corporations are by their
nature end- or goal-directed how can they acknowledge acts as wrong in
and of themselves? Is it possible to hold one criminally responsible for
acts that if performed by a human person would result in criminal
liability?
The first case of this type to achieve widespread public attention was
the attempt to prosecute the Ford Motor Company for manslaughter as
the result of alleged negligent or reckless decision making concerning the
safety engineering of the Pinto vehicle. Although the defendant
corporation and its officers were found innocent after trial, the case can
serve as an exemplar for our purposes.
In essence, the prosecution in this case attempted to show that the
corporation had produced and distributed a vehicle that was known to be
defective at the time of production and sale, and that even after a great
deal of additional information accumulated regarding the nature of the
problems, the corporation took no action to correct them. The obvious
non-corporate analogy would be the prosecution of a person who was
driving a car with brakes known to be faulty, who does not have them
repaired because it would cost too much, and who kills someone when
the brakes eventually fail and the car does not stop in time. Such cases
involving individuals are prosecuted and won regularly.
If corporations have no concept of right or wrong because they are
exclusively goal-directed, can they be convicted in cases of this type, and
what purpose would be served by such a conviction? Perhaps we can
make a utilitarian argument for convicting corporations of such crimes.
The argument would be that of deterrence; conviction and punishment
would deter other corporations from taking similar actions under similar
circumstances. However, there appears to be considerable evidence that
deterrence does not work on corporations, even if, arguably, it works on
individuals. The possibility of being discovered and the potential
magnitude of the fine merely become more data to be included in the
analysis of limiting conditions.
Q- If a company that produced shampoo products opted to stop the routine
testing of its products on animals because it decided that it is wrong to cause
the animals pain, what effect would this have on the argument made in the
passage?
A. It would strongly support the argument.
B. It would support the argument somewhat, but not conclusively.
C. It would neither support nor substantially weaken the argument.
D. It would substantially weaken the argument.
E. It would weaken the argument only if the company is a government
owned company
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
29 Mar 2016, 09:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
According to the passage, organizations are driven by profits and are not concerned about ethics and moral values.
A. It would strongly support the argument. - Incorrect - Opposite
B. It would support the argument somewhat, but not conclusively. - Incorrect - Opposite
C. It would neither support nor substantially weaken the argument. - Incorrect - It weakens the argument stated in the passage
D. It would substantially weaken the argument. - Correct
E. It would weaken the argument only if the company is a government owned company - Incorrect - The passage mentions organizations in general and does not limit to a government owned company.
Answer: D
P.S: Please do not split the RC questions into multiple posts. Make sure that a single post/passage contains all the questions.
A. It would strongly support the argument. - Incorrect - Opposite
B. It would support the argument somewhat, but not conclusively. - Incorrect - Opposite
C. It would neither support nor substantially weaken the argument. - Incorrect - It weakens the argument stated in the passage
D. It would substantially weaken the argument. - Correct
E. It would weaken the argument only if the company is a government owned company - Incorrect - The passage mentions organizations in general and does not limit to a government owned company.
Answer: D
P.S: Please do not split the RC questions into multiple posts. Make sure that a single post/passage contains all the questions.
10 Feb 2017, 09:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Nice passage but not properly posted .
