1. Represent the following sentences on a two circle Venn Diagram. Clearly label the circles.
A. Some ALDS games are not on TBS.
B. Nobody that saves for retirement regrets it.
C. Every rational person maximizes expected utility.
D. Some consumers are more influenced by a change in price than by the price itself.
E. It's not true that all impulse purchases are emotion-based.
2. Using a three-circle Venn Diagram, check the following categorical arguments for validity.
A. Some advertisers try to create a new ideal state for consumers. Some advertisers try to create dissatisfaction with the consumer's current state. So, some who try to create a new ideal state also try to create dissatisfaction with the current state.
B. No sophisticated diners leave their napkins on the table after they sit. Everyone who plans to stand to shake hands with late-comers leaves her napkin on the table after she sits. It follows that no one who plans to stand and shake hands with late-comers is a sophisticated diner.
C. Some businesses with fewer than twenty-five employees will not receive a federal tax credit. This is true because, some business with fewer than twenty-five employees will not offer health insurance to their employees, and all companies who offer health insurance to their employees will receive a federal tax credit.
D. Some economies are agrarian. No developed economies are agrarian economies. So, some economies are not developed.
E. All wars are fought for economic reasons. Some wars are fought for religious reasons. Therefore, some wars are both religious and economic.
3. Consider the question: should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? Any argument for an answer to the question is an argument for a normative conclusion. Look at this list of arguments for both answers to the question: http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/#pro_con Interesting as the arguments are, none of them have normative premises. Pick (any) one argument from each side and reconstruct it (paraphrasing to simplify is fine), adding the most plausible normative premise you can that makes the argument valid.
4. Construct an argument that justifies either an affirmative or negative answer to this question: Is it morally acceptable for executives of Toys "R" Us to ask their employees to act in the way described below? The case comes from the sixth edition of Ethics and the Conduct of Business by John Boatright (Pearson, 2009, p.11).
Toys "R" Us: Fair or Foul?
Hardball tactics are often applauded in business, but when Child World was the victim, the toy retailer cried foul.' Its complaint was directed against a major competitor, Toys "R" Us, whose employees allegedly bought Child World inventory off the shelves during a promotion in which customers received $25 gift certificates for buying merchandise worth $100. The employees of Toys "R" Us were accused of selecting products that Child World sells close to cost, such as diapers, baby food, and infant formula. These items could be resold by Toys "R" Us at a profit, because the purchase price at Child World was barely above what a wholesaler would charge, and then Toys or Us could redeem the certificates for additional free merchandise, which could be resold at an even higher profit. Child World claims that its competitor bought up to $1.5 million worth of merchandise in this undercover manner and received as much as $375,000 worth of gift certificates. The practice is apparently legal, although Child World stated that the promotion excluded dealers, wholesalers, and retailers. Executives at Toys or Us do not deny the accusation and contend that the practice is common in the industry. Child World may have left itself open to such a hardball tactic by slashing prices and offering the certificates in an effort to increase market share against its larger rival.