Reading Comprehension

MAKE IT TIMED EFFORT TO GAIN MAX OUT OF IT .

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.

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

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

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

PLease kindly also tell the reason for choosing the answer for 3rd question.

OA aftersmtime

hey,
whts the source?

it take me 10 minutes to read

where do you find this?

duongthang wrote:it take me 10 minutes to read

where do you find this?

U didnt mention ur answers ?

Its RC99 passage .

topic : Bussiness units

1st para:

goals: P,G,S via good/serv
example: profit > ethics (for lesser protest)
big protest cannot be ignored and raw good cost increase


2nd para:
individual vs corp (values and priciples)
person resp for his act.. how corp /whom in corp is resp?


3rd para:
Ford case... ford is innocent
case has public attention

4th para:
Ford know a defect in car but still sold it
car driver is resp for bad brakes during manufacture

Individual is hit in every case like this..

5th para:
Can ford be accused in 4th para case?
strong punishments wil allow other corp to behave

Punishment will work on individual not corp
only fine for corps

vERY TOUGH AIM 12 MIN

2) individual is responsible not company to test the shampoo

between A and C

3) 5th para
a) wrong: individual detternce is effectiv
b) good
C) pollution is out of scpe
d) good
e) wrong : passage never said this.

1) C

Thanks HSPA for replying in such a detail . There goes the OA BDB.

Yeah i agree tough and long one . I was not convinced with answer of question 3 .The accuracy for this passage was real bad, kills the confidence.

Got it right, But went on to take 13 minutes

C
D
B
8:30 mins....

can someone explain why B and not C in 1?