-
shellyr88
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:40 am
- Location: Toronto, ON
- Thanked: 6 times
- GMAT Score:720
"Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working-not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are."
MY ESSAY:
In the past years, the merit of ethical regulations in business has become increasingly important. Many companies work toward building strong ethical reputations to present a good image to customers as well as other companies they do business with. In the argument above, the author believes that the department in question cannot benefit from stronger ethics regulations or enforcement mechanisms. His reasoning is as follows: the department has a relevant code which was approved in recent years, the code addresses specific violations which were being committed at the time it was being created, and finally, the companies with which this department works have agreed to the code. While the author attempts to make a convincing argument, it falls short due to the unsubstantiated premises and the numerous assumptions it makes.
The primary issue with the author's argument are the premises which lack adequate evidence. The author states that they have a relevant and current code in place. He believes the code to be relevant due to the fact that it has recently been approved and addressed specific violations. The premise does not provide information for the reader to know whether there have been new violations or considerations to include in the code since it was approved. Naturally, as companies evolve and perform a greater number of operations, one would expect that the code will need to be updated regularly to include new information. Further, the reader is given no information about who approved the code and whether or not they were fair in their approval process.
Moreover, the author makes several assumptions in the argument which are not proven. He assumes that because the department has a code in place that makes the department's behavior ethical. In fact, many companies which have ethical codes have still have departments or individuals that do not abide by the code and perform unethical behaviors. The author assumes that the mere face of having a code will negate unethical behaviors from taking place but this is certainly not the case. If there are individuals who are not following the code even though it is in place, then stronger enforcement mechanisms will be needed. Additionally, the individuals working in the department may not even be aware of the ethical code and thus, do not even know the guidelines. In this case, the department could definitely benefit by having stronger regulations, such as those that would require employees to review the code and pass a test of knowledge about it.
While there are many flaws in the author's argument that is not to say that it is without value. The author could improve his argument by addressing the assumptions and supporting his premises. If he were to indicate that there were no new violations to be considered at the point that this argument were written, it would let the author reasonably believe that the code is still relevant. Further, providing information about the approval process will increase the reliability of the code in the reader's eyes. The author should also state how employees are informed about the ethical code and if there have been any individuals who have performed unethical behaviors and what enforcement mechanisms are in place.
All in all, the author's presents a very weak argument with unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions. With some research and evidence, the argument can certainly address the flaws in logic and improve his argument. Otherwise, it will fail to convince many.
MY ESSAY:
In the past years, the merit of ethical regulations in business has become increasingly important. Many companies work toward building strong ethical reputations to present a good image to customers as well as other companies they do business with. In the argument above, the author believes that the department in question cannot benefit from stronger ethics regulations or enforcement mechanisms. His reasoning is as follows: the department has a relevant code which was approved in recent years, the code addresses specific violations which were being committed at the time it was being created, and finally, the companies with which this department works have agreed to the code. While the author attempts to make a convincing argument, it falls short due to the unsubstantiated premises and the numerous assumptions it makes.
The primary issue with the author's argument are the premises which lack adequate evidence. The author states that they have a relevant and current code in place. He believes the code to be relevant due to the fact that it has recently been approved and addressed specific violations. The premise does not provide information for the reader to know whether there have been new violations or considerations to include in the code since it was approved. Naturally, as companies evolve and perform a greater number of operations, one would expect that the code will need to be updated regularly to include new information. Further, the reader is given no information about who approved the code and whether or not they were fair in their approval process.
Moreover, the author makes several assumptions in the argument which are not proven. He assumes that because the department has a code in place that makes the department's behavior ethical. In fact, many companies which have ethical codes have still have departments or individuals that do not abide by the code and perform unethical behaviors. The author assumes that the mere face of having a code will negate unethical behaviors from taking place but this is certainly not the case. If there are individuals who are not following the code even though it is in place, then stronger enforcement mechanisms will be needed. Additionally, the individuals working in the department may not even be aware of the ethical code and thus, do not even know the guidelines. In this case, the department could definitely benefit by having stronger regulations, such as those that would require employees to review the code and pass a test of knowledge about it.
While there are many flaws in the author's argument that is not to say that it is without value. The author could improve his argument by addressing the assumptions and supporting his premises. If he were to indicate that there were no new violations to be considered at the point that this argument were written, it would let the author reasonably believe that the code is still relevant. Further, providing information about the approval process will increase the reliability of the code in the reader's eyes. The author should also state how employees are informed about the ethical code and if there have been any individuals who have performed unethical behaviors and what enforcement mechanisms are in place.
All in all, the author's presents a very weak argument with unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions. With some research and evidence, the argument can certainly address the flaws in logic and improve his argument. Otherwise, it will fail to convince many.
