This passage deals with Whistleblowers and the altruism related to reporting "Cheats" and punishing "Cheats"
Q8: The author would look upon "whistleblowers" with:
A. Suspicion.
B. Envy.
C. Admiration.
D. Altruism.
What the article has to say about whistleblowers:
The Whistleblower's Protection Act of 1989 was instituted to protect those who came forward.... however, for various reasons, it is an abysmal failure. There really is no protection for the whistleblowers. A quick perusal of the stories behind those who have broken ranks to expose gross instances of what can roughly be characterized as "cheating" shows that whistleblowers are invariability castigated by their employers and then punished. What then would motivate someone to come forward in this fashion, knowing that their selfless decrying of wrongs would come to nothing, or worse?
Here's what the article has to say about Altruism (as it related to the people who report incidences):
Dr. Ernst Fehr... offer evidence that people will seek to punish a cheat even when the punishment is costly to them and offers no material benefit - the very definition of altruism.
With these TWO CLEAR STATEMENTS in mind: 1) It is readily apparent (and thus common knowledge) that whistleblowers get punished. 2) People who turn in cheats and knowing they will get punished are altruistic.
Let's be honest, if you're about to rat out your boss to the federal government and potentially get him fired, you're going to do research on whether or not your protected. The assertion that your not (as presented by the passage) should be common knowledge.
The answer is clearly D, altruism.
But this is wrong! The answer is C. Admiration. The books reasoning:
C: Admiration: From the passage, remember, "whistleblowers are invariably castigated by their employers and then punished" Yet they are responsible for "selfless decrying of wrongs". Altruism and selfless acts are universally admired; it is clear from the passage that the author is no exception.
D: altruism: This is an inappropriate use of the word.
Whaaaaaaat? You just defined altruism!
----------------------------------------------------
Q9: The author's reasoning about "societal acts" could most reasonably be extended to questions about:
A. "Eat Meat" and vegetarianism.
B. "Give a hoot, don't pollute" and littering.
C. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and prison sentences.
D. "Just say 'No'" and Drugs
KAPLANS REASONING:
"Societal acts are 'behaviors that we laud and endorse and vow to cultivate more fully in ourselves' and 'could not have evolved without a corresponding readiness to catch, and to punish, the Cheat'. The author's reasoning would not necessarily have to agree with that of a correct answer. However, the correct answer should promote questions, issues, or ideas common to both "societal acts" and the answer.
B. (my answer): This answer fails to provide any consequences (or rewards) for the do-gooder, other than having to carry the trash to the nearest receptacle rather than immediately throwing it on the ground.
D. (credited answer): We could reasonably extend the author's reasoning to questions about this slogan. This answer is challenged by the author's reasoning. The implication of "Just say 'No'" is that this will help protect society. There is no selflessness here or altruism. In fact, the author would say, "turn in someone trying to sell you drugs" regardless of the consequences. Many questions can be extends to both. For instance, one can ask, "Is it better to simply say 'no' and turn away without exposing or punishing the person selling the drugs, the transgressor?" Is not society harmed "if the selfish cheater can continue to cheat without rebuke or consequence."
I disagree wholeheartedly with this interpretation by Kaplan.
Firstly, drugs (most drugs) affect only the user, not society as a whole. Littering is a direct act that must, by its nature, affect others. But let's look at some some more reasoning.
Kaplan suggests that answer B fails to provide any consequences or rewards for the do-gooder. The same is true of answer D. Not doing any drugs has changes you 0 from constant of you not doing drugs anyways. Both answers come out even in this consideration.
Kaplan suggests that Just say No will help protect society. Well, won't not littering do the same thing? Especially when it has a more direct affect on society (again, drugs typically on affect the first person, directly.) I believe "give a hoot" would protect society more, and is a stronger case (as pollution and littering DIRECTLY affect other individuals). Give a hoot wins.
You can state "turn in a litterer regardless of the consequences" just as easily. Even here.
Many question can ALSO be extended to "Give a hoot, don't pollute." Should you report somebody who is burning trash in their yard? How about somebody who is burning a fire in a fire-free zone? should you approach them? Report them? And what if you see somebody litter?
In the end, I feel as if polluting/littering has a direct affect on other individuals, while drugs do not. This causes B to seem to be a much more appropriate answer.
Q8: The author would look upon "whistleblowers" with:
A. Suspicion.
B. Envy.
C. Admiration.
D. Altruism.
What the article has to say about whistleblowers:
The Whistleblower's Protection Act of 1989 was instituted to protect those who came forward.... however, for various reasons, it is an abysmal failure. There really is no protection for the whistleblowers. A quick perusal of the stories behind those who have broken ranks to expose gross instances of what can roughly be characterized as "cheating" shows that whistleblowers are invariability castigated by their employers and then punished. What then would motivate someone to come forward in this fashion, knowing that their selfless decrying of wrongs would come to nothing, or worse?
Here's what the article has to say about Altruism (as it related to the people who report incidences):
Dr. Ernst Fehr... offer evidence that people will seek to punish a cheat even when the punishment is costly to them and offers no material benefit - the very definition of altruism.
With these TWO CLEAR STATEMENTS in mind: 1) It is readily apparent (and thus common knowledge) that whistleblowers get punished. 2) People who turn in cheats and knowing they will get punished are altruistic.
Let's be honest, if you're about to rat out your boss to the federal government and potentially get him fired, you're going to do research on whether or not your protected. The assertion that your not (as presented by the passage) should be common knowledge.
The answer is clearly D, altruism.
But this is wrong! The answer is C. Admiration. The books reasoning:
C: Admiration: From the passage, remember, "whistleblowers are invariably castigated by their employers and then punished" Yet they are responsible for "selfless decrying of wrongs". Altruism and selfless acts are universally admired; it is clear from the passage that the author is no exception.
D: altruism: This is an inappropriate use of the word.
Whaaaaaaat? You just defined altruism!
----------------------------------------------------
Q9: The author's reasoning about "societal acts" could most reasonably be extended to questions about:
A. "Eat Meat" and vegetarianism.
B. "Give a hoot, don't pollute" and littering.
C. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and prison sentences.
D. "Just say 'No'" and Drugs
KAPLANS REASONING:
"Societal acts are 'behaviors that we laud and endorse and vow to cultivate more fully in ourselves' and 'could not have evolved without a corresponding readiness to catch, and to punish, the Cheat'. The author's reasoning would not necessarily have to agree with that of a correct answer. However, the correct answer should promote questions, issues, or ideas common to both "societal acts" and the answer.
B. (my answer): This answer fails to provide any consequences (or rewards) for the do-gooder, other than having to carry the trash to the nearest receptacle rather than immediately throwing it on the ground.
D. (credited answer): We could reasonably extend the author's reasoning to questions about this slogan. This answer is challenged by the author's reasoning. The implication of "Just say 'No'" is that this will help protect society. There is no selflessness here or altruism. In fact, the author would say, "turn in someone trying to sell you drugs" regardless of the consequences. Many questions can be extends to both. For instance, one can ask, "Is it better to simply say 'no' and turn away without exposing or punishing the person selling the drugs, the transgressor?" Is not society harmed "if the selfish cheater can continue to cheat without rebuke or consequence."
I disagree wholeheartedly with this interpretation by Kaplan.
Firstly, drugs (most drugs) affect only the user, not society as a whole. Littering is a direct act that must, by its nature, affect others. But let's look at some some more reasoning.
Kaplan suggests that answer B fails to provide any consequences or rewards for the do-gooder. The same is true of answer D. Not doing any drugs has changes you 0 from constant of you not doing drugs anyways. Both answers come out even in this consideration.
Kaplan suggests that Just say No will help protect society. Well, won't not littering do the same thing? Especially when it has a more direct affect on society (again, drugs typically on affect the first person, directly.) I believe "give a hoot" would protect society more, and is a stronger case (as pollution and littering DIRECTLY affect other individuals). Give a hoot wins.
You can state "turn in a litterer regardless of the consequences" just as easily. Even here.
Many question can ALSO be extended to "Give a hoot, don't pollute." Should you report somebody who is burning trash in their yard? How about somebody who is burning a fire in a fire-free zone? should you approach them? Report them? And what if you see somebody litter?
In the end, I feel as if polluting/littering has a direct affect on other individuals, while drugs do not. This causes B to seem to be a much more appropriate answer.
