PT48, S1, Q16 Most business ethics courses and textbooks

by **aileenann** Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:04 pm

16. (D)
Question Type: Strengthen the Argument
One way to strengthen an argument is identify the underlying assumption of a premise. Here, there is a clear gap in the flow of the argument. Consider the argument somewhat simplified, and the gap should be apparent:

Most ethics courses only consider specific cases and principles. However, this approach does not work and should be changed to include abstract ethical theory to help students understand specific principles.

Doesn’t it almost seem as though the word "abstract" is a typo? Why should we choose abstract ethical theory? Why not a different sort of ethical theory? The emphasis throughout the argument is on specific principles and specific cases, but the author uses this information to reach a conclusion about abstract theories, not general cases and principles. (D) fills this gap by making explicit the unlikely assumption that abstract theory is actually the best way to understand specific principles.

(A) is too extreme and out of scope I It uses language that is much too strong: "unacceptable." It also includes a new concept that we don’t have in the original argument and don’t need: "diversity." Finally, it discusses "moralizing," but we don’t have a basis to determine whether this is the same as "ethics" in the context of the argument.
(B) is incorrect because desirability of the technique is too broad a criterion for what concerns us in this argument, specifically students’ ability to understand specific principles. Also, we have no basis to believe the business ethics courses in question concentrate "mainly" (another strong word) on role-playing.
(C) is out of scope and very silly. The argument does not concern itself at all with ethical obligations but rather only considers the ethical understanding of students in the courses.
(E) is out of scope. A wide range of principles is not the same as an abstract theory. For example, a wide range could refer to a smorgasboard of specific principles.