The exam will have TEN MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS and ONE SHORT ANSWER QUESTION.
The Quiz is 2.5 hours. (This should be more than enough time.)
HOW TO STUDY FOR THE EXAM:
Below is a complete descriiption of the exam, which includes FOUR sample questions. Please review the descriiption of the quiz carefully and review the sample questions. Then, if you have any questions about the quiz, ask in the Forum below..
The TEN MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS will be on the following topics:
THREE multiple choice questions which involve analyzing situations and applying concepts and moral theories studied in the class. Here is a sample question which will appear on the quiz:
SAMPLE QUESTION:
The coach of a Pop Warner football team severely criticized a young boy, 9 years old. When he came home, he was crying. His parents asked him about what happened, but the boy did not want to talk about it. He just said that, “The coach said I did something wrong.”
The boy was small for his age, and never fit in very well with the team. He was not oversensitive.
The parents thought about how they should react to the situation.
Which of the following considerations is most characteristic of approaching this situation from an ‘ethics of care’ perspective?
(SELECT THE MOST APPROPRIATE ANSWER)
Select one:
a. Punching the coach in the nose for yelling at your kid.
b. Considering how all the rest of the boys on the team are treated, and whether or not your child has been treated fairly.
c. Considering the long term consequences of the experience for all concerned.
d. Considering relationships within your family, between your child, others on the team, the coaches and the parents, and whether or not the way your child has been treated contributes to a healthy environment for your child.
e. Considering how the experience may be a way for your child to learn courage and independence.
THREE multiple choice questions will involve analyzing the Malden Mills case study and applying moral theories and concepts to the case. Here is a sample question, which will appear on the quiz:
SAMPLE QUESTION:
Select the statement below which: 1) accurately applies a moral theory or concept studied in the course AND 2) provides the strongest support for the claim that Feuerstein lacked adequate moral grounds for paying his employees while his factory was being rebuilt.
Select one:
a. Kantian moral theory: the argument that Feuerstein treated his employees as a mere means to an end.
b. Virtue theory: the argument that Feuerstein lacked the courage to make the right decision.
c. Utilitarianism: the argument that spending these resources on an uncompetitive business model cost jobs, resources and did not encourage the development of competitive skills in workers, over the long haul.
d. Ethics of Care: the argument that Feuerstein should have cared more for himself than his employees.
e. Right theory: the argument that Feuerstein had no right to waste his money.
FOUR multiple choice questions AND ONE short answer question will involve analyzing the case below.
Below the case is presented, as well as one multiple choice question and the short answer question that will appear on the exam.
HERE IS THE CASE
As the head of corporate audit for a major pharmaceutical company, I was involved in the lengthy approval process that the Food and Drug Administration requires before a new drug can be brought to market. The reviewer for the FDA was asking some tough questions about the data supporting our application to market a new drug. Although I managed to answer the reviewer’s questions to his apparent satisfaction, doubts were beginning to form in my own mind about the reliability of the data I was defending, so I instructed my staff to get photocopies of the original research reports for me as soon as possible.
The photocopies provided evidence of ‘double books’. The raw data in the original reports were entirely different from the data in our FDA application and showed the new drug failing every required test. I had heard rumors of other questionable conduct by the project director, and I suspected that he was implicated in the falsification of the data, although I had no proof for any accusations. I rejected the idea of blowing the whistle on the company by telling everything to the FDA and decided instead to follow the procedure outlined in the company’s own whistle-blowing policy. Accordingly, I prepared a report stating only the facts that I could document, and I sent it to the next highest level above the person involved, which in this situation was the legal department of the corporation.
