Self-study
P1
Traditionally, corporate bankruptcy law placed highest priority on the orderly discharge of debts; courts generally ordered failed businesses to pay all creditors a set percentage of the amounts owed. ███
Traditional Approach ·
Discharge of debts is top priority
Modern Approach ·
“Reorganization” allows company to continue operating
Argument for Traditional Approach ·
Bankruptcy is solely to pay back creditors
Example of traditionalist: Jackson
P2
██████ ████████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███████ ████████ ██ █ █████████████ ███████████ ████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████ ███████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ███████████████ █████ █████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██████ █████████ █████████ ████████ ███████ █████ ███ █ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ██ ██████
Critique of Traditional Approach ·
Traditionalists do not consider other interests (employees, communities)
P3
████████ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ █ █████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████████ ████████ ██ █ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ███████████
Argument for Modern Approach ·
Fairness for all parties through (1) inclusion and (2) rational planning
P4
███ █████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ███
Main Conclusion ·
Modern approach is more equitable but also has weaknesses
Premise 1 ·
Credit will be more expensive
Premise 2 ·
No way of assessing vulnerability to loss
Passage Style
Critique or debate
21.
Which one of the following ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ████████
a
a peace plan ████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ████ █ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ███████ █████
This doesn’t conform, because rational planning doesn’t require numerical balance on each side. What matters is which side is more vulnerable; we don’t get any indication that the concessions are based on vulnerability in (A). There’s also no indication that (A) reflects a concern for long-term interests.
b
an emergency management ████ █████████ ██ █████ █████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ █ ████████ ███ ██ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ███████ █████████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █████
This best conforms, because it’s the only answer that conforms to one of the priorities. (B) involves someone who is the most vulnerable having their interests protected over the interests of someone less vulnerable. Rather than giving out medical attention equally, we give out attention to the most vulnerable (most badly injured) first.
c
an investment strategy ████ ████████ █████████ ███████████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████████████ ████
This doesn’t conform, because it doesn’t involve a comparison of vulnerability or a concern for long-term impact. Some investments might be more or less risky, but that doesn’t imply that one thing is more likely to be harmed than another. In addition, there’s no indication the investor strategy reflects long-term interests of all parties involved.
d
a taxation policy ████ ███████ █ ███████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ████████
This doesn’t involve a comparison of vulnerability or a concern for long-term interests. Some items are taxed more than other items, but (D) doesn’t describe one person or thing being more vulnerable to harm than another person or thing, or that the tax policy reflects a concern for long-term interests of all parties involved.
e
a public-health initiative ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████
This doesn’t involve a comparison of vulnerability or a concern for long-term interests. We’re not told one person or thing is more vulnerable to some kind of harm than another person or thing, or that the initiative reflects concern for long-term interests of all parties involved.