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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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 2512:30 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 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.
Question 1
B
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:
51% (03:00) correct
49%
(03:07) wrong
based on 638
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 2
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
56% (00:49) correct 44%
(01:06) wrong
based on 731
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 3
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
74% (01:01) correct 26%
(01:11) wrong
based on 680
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
1. A claim that things have ethical value to corporations only insofar as they are instrumental in furthering the ultimate goals of the corporation is:
A. necessarily true, given the information presented in the passage.
B. perhaps true, and supported by the information presented in the passage.
C. perhaps true, but not supported by any information in the passage.
D. necessarily false, given the information presented in the passage.
E. a figment of the author‘s imagination
A. necessarily true, given the information presented in the passage.
B. perhaps true, and supported by the information presented in the passage.
C. perhaps true, but not supported by any information in the passage.
D. necessarily false, given the information presented in the passage.
E. a figment of the author‘s imagination
2. 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
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
3. Which of the following assertions would most strengthen the author‘s claim that deterrence will not work on corporations?
A. The possibility of punishment does not deter many individuals from committing crimes.
B. The penalties imposed on companies have amounted to a small fraction of their profits.
C. Strict anti-pollution laws have cut down on the waste dumped by companies into rivers.
D. The trial of a corporation is often extended over a period of several years
E. Corporation have a battery of lawyers protecting their interests
A. The possibility of punishment does not deter many individuals from committing crimes.
B. The penalties imposed on companies have amounted to a small fraction of their profits.
C. Strict anti-pollution laws have cut down on the waste dumped by companies into rivers.
D. The trial of a corporation is often extended over a period of several years
E. Corporation have a battery of lawyers protecting their interests
27 Mar 2021, 07:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
1. A claim that things have ethical value to corporations only insofar as they are instrumental in furthering the ultimate goals of the corporation is:
we are choosing perheps because in the passage author stated again again that company will switch between moral and immoral stance only if it is profitable for it so saying that it will choose ethics only if it is profitable is wrong may be from the beginnig both types of behaviour is not giving any profit or loss.
A. necessarily true, given the information presented in the passage.
B. perhaps true, and supported by the information presented in the passage.
C. perhaps true, but not supported by any information in the passage.
D. necessarily false, given the information presented in the passage.
E. a figment of the author‘s imagination
2. 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?
-- ARGUMENT IN THE PASSAGE IS things are not morral for any organization untill and unless there is mass boycott against it , untill then company will continue to with wrong doing.
now according to the question company is taking moral stance on its own which will weaken the argument of 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
3. Which of the following assertions would most strengthen the author‘s claim that deterrence will not work on corporations?
ITS HINT CAN BE FOUND IN LAST PARAGRAPH
-- 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.
A. The possibility of punishment does not deter many individuals from committing crimes.
B. The penalties imposed on companies have amounted to a small fraction of their profits.
C. Strict anti-pollution laws have cut down on the waste dumped by companies into rivers.
D. The trial of a corporation is often extended over a period of several years
E. Corporation have a battery of lawyers protecting their interests
we are choosing perheps because in the passage author stated again again that company will switch between moral and immoral stance only if it is profitable for it so saying that it will choose ethics only if it is profitable is wrong may be from the beginnig both types of behaviour is not giving any profit or loss.
A. necessarily true, given the information presented in the passage.
B. perhaps true, and supported by the information presented in the passage.
C. perhaps true, but not supported by any information in the passage.
D. necessarily false, given the information presented in the passage.
E. a figment of the author‘s imagination
2. 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?
-- ARGUMENT IN THE PASSAGE IS things are not morral for any organization untill and unless there is mass boycott against it , untill then company will continue to with wrong doing.
now according to the question company is taking moral stance on its own which will weaken the argument of 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
3. Which of the following assertions would most strengthen the author‘s claim that deterrence will not work on corporations?
ITS HINT CAN BE FOUND IN LAST PARAGRAPH
-- 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.
A. The possibility of punishment does not deter many individuals from committing crimes.
B. The penalties imposed on companies have amounted to a small fraction of their profits.
C. Strict anti-pollution laws have cut down on the waste dumped by companies into rivers.
D. The trial of a corporation is often extended over a period of several years
E. Corporation have a battery of lawyers protecting their interests
General Discussion
24 Sep 2023, 12:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Explanation
1. A claim that things have ethical value to corporations only insofar as they are instrumental in furthering the ultimate goals of the corporation is:
Explanation
Topic and Scope - Corporations hold values pursuant only to corporate goals, not traditional morals, so prosecuting them for ethical crimes doesn't work.
Mapping the Passage
Paragraph 1 discusses the goals and ethical limitations of corporations (3M example)
Paragraph 2 explains methods for making corporations respond to moral concerns.
Paragraph 3 contrasts the corporations with individuals and outlines some individual ethics.
Paragraph 4 asks if corporations can be held responsible for ethical crimes.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 describe a failed attempt to prosecute a corporation for such crimes (Pinto).
Paragraph 7 presents a possible argument in favour of prosecution: deterrence. Evidence shows no deterring effect on corporations, though.
Strategy Point:
Persuasive passages usually address alternate and opposing views. Make sure you’re clear not only on who is arguing for what, but how the author responds to critics. Having a clear map will simplify locating each view.
The author argues that this is true, and gives an example in Paragraph 1 and 2. (C) and (D) can be eliminated. Does this argument have to necessarily be true? There‘s nothing in the argument to indicate that there could never be an exception. (B) is the only choice left standing.
(A): Distortion. A very tempting wrong answer choice. Remember that anything necessarily true will have very strong logical support in the passage. We have only a few examples here, not a definite rule.
(B): The correct answer
(C): Distortion. While the information is perhaps true, there‘s plenty of support for the author‘s argument in the passage.
(D): Opposite. The information in the passage doesn‘t prove the claim, but it does support it.
(E): Incorrect as the author clearly provides support for this fact as explained above.
Answer: B
Explanation
Topic and Scope - Corporations hold values pursuant only to corporate goals, not traditional morals, so prosecuting them for ethical crimes doesn't work.
Mapping the Passage
Paragraph 1 discusses the goals and ethical limitations of corporations (3M example)
Paragraph 2 explains methods for making corporations respond to moral concerns.
Paragraph 3 contrasts the corporations with individuals and outlines some individual ethics.
Paragraph 4 asks if corporations can be held responsible for ethical crimes.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 describe a failed attempt to prosecute a corporation for such crimes (Pinto).
Paragraph 7 presents a possible argument in favour of prosecution: deterrence. Evidence shows no deterring effect on corporations, though.
Strategy Point:
Persuasive passages usually address alternate and opposing views. Make sure you’re clear not only on who is arguing for what, but how the author responds to critics. Having a clear map will simplify locating each view.
The author argues that this is true, and gives an example in Paragraph 1 and 2. (C) and (D) can be eliminated. Does this argument have to necessarily be true? There‘s nothing in the argument to indicate that there could never be an exception. (B) is the only choice left standing.
(A): Distortion. A very tempting wrong answer choice. Remember that anything necessarily true will have very strong logical support in the passage. We have only a few examples here, not a definite rule.
(B): The correct answer
(C): Distortion. While the information is perhaps true, there‘s plenty of support for the author‘s argument in the passage.
(D): Opposite. The information in the passage doesn‘t prove the claim, but it does support it.
(E): Incorrect as the author clearly provides support for this fact as explained above.
Answer: B
