ModernThink decided not to give him the raw data that he asked for due to it being a core competency of the company and did not want anyone to see how they organize their data. I could have tried to get his institution to allow him to see the reports that they purchased or allowed him to purchase other reports. This could have greatly assisted Harry without risking ModernThink’s competitive advantage in any way. Additionally, throughout the negotiation I tried to be as supportive of Harry’s interests to the extent that limited my ability to focus on the interests of the company that I was working for. I could have utilized a little more perspective taking to better understand why my superiors had the positions they did.
‘I’m much obliged but I couldn’t take any more work.” (Fitzgerald 83). This use of dialogue is a prime example of how Fitzgerald generates a conversation between Nick and Gatsby to give importance to this specific part of the book. Without this use of dialogue the readers would perhaps feel seem to feel lost in the story because they would not understand what will be going on in the book at that specific time. This piece of dialogue is important because it proves that Nick is socially responsible due to him rejecting Gatsby's offer for a job based on the fact that it is illegal. Nick
However, we don’t feel they should be exempt from punishment due to their freedom of speech; their posts were gravely inappropriate and offensive. They intentionally discriminated against a group of people; they had no regards to other’s statuses as human beings which in our honest opinion is extremely unethical. Every human being should be treated with respect regardless of their culture, ethnicity, race, gender, etc. Johnny's leadership roles within his school simply doesn’t convince us that he was bullied into discriminating others, so we feel that he too should face the consequences. As a leader he should have known better.
Steve uses rhetorical questions to imply that he knows what he did wrong, but does not want to admit to the crime. He writes his part in the crime casually, which further conveys the conflict in his mind. He depends on others to bring clarity to his mind, such as saying, “What did I do?”. After the session at court was finished, Steve was insecure about what Ms. O’Brien, his lawyer, thinks of him. He
The relationship between Marshall and Shelly was also riddled with violations, though not overtly detrimental to the client they were detrimental just the same. Marshall was in no way acting in the best interest of Shelly, his course of treatment had two directives: save the institute and advance his reputation and career. Marshall’s agenda was in violation of the ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and fidelity. Helping Shelly become a better gambler is not unethical, that was not however his reason for seeking treatment. Alternatively, it was quite evident that gambling was an area of concern.
He had stolen files that were not his, and most of all, he did it without the owner’s consent. Even though he was unaware of his actions being considered as stealing, what he did was still morally wrong. On the other side, the supporters of Aaron used the utilitarian theory. They did not care much as to what they were violating or what can be or will be violated, because they believe that their purpose and output is justifiable. In my opinion, I believe that the best ethical theory to be applied in this kind of situation is the social contract theory, simply because it stops conflict.
With such surprising sentences the designer is seeking for people to take action and this is mostly seen when the last line of the advertisement is “you can’t afford to ignore it.” If the creator would have left out the two lines that use logos the advertisement would not have the same impact because the creator would have no proof to support his claim. Through the use of logos the designer uses evidence to support his claims while establishing credibility. The establishment of credibility by the designer is somewhat credible. The creator uses facts to support his claims, earning him some respect because he has evidence in order to sustain his advertisement.
The issue at hand was supposed to be about our civil liberties being violated, but Snowden inadvertently put the spotlight on himself by breaking the law as well. Thus, bringing up our topic of him being a hero or a traitor rather than just the government breaking civil laws. While the topic of Snowden is a valid issue, it is not exactly the one that should be receiving the most attention by the media. Instead of focusing on who did what, we should be focusing on the public’s rights and safety. The argument against Snowden also brings up the false dilemma fallacy.
The flow of his argument has the potential to confuse readers, and as the author of an argument, the last thing Zinsmeister wants to do is confuse his readers. He wants people to be on his side, and the chances of that happening when they don't understand his argument are slim. Zinsmeister makes great points throughout his argument, but his inability to stay away from assumptions degrades the quality of his points. All of these great points are very well supported by Zinsmeister, including his opposing viewpoint paragraph. Day care is not for everyone, and if Zinsmeister truly wants to change the way people feel about day care, he will have to restructure the majority of his argument and find a way to fix his assumptions.
He has always been respectful of Calpurnia. Morally, he believes that it would be wrong to fire Calpurnia and rid her of a job. Bob Ewell is an example of someone who isn't respectful. When Bob Ewell had met Atticus at the Post Office, he had just spat at him. Instead, he could have remained civil with Atticus, because he was just doing his job.