Everyday people employ the use of logic to help them clarify or solve problems. Logic may only provide validity or highly probable ideas, but the correct answer, if any, is left for one to decide. The science of thinking and rationalizing, logic is like a double-edge sword. When logic is utilized it may become an efficient tool, capable of discovering correct ideas and understandings. Yet, it can also become an unsolvable maze, causing more confusion than clarity. There are certain methods of logic to determine possible solutions for a problem and to verify them. Induction and deduction are arguments that may give a solution, which is not considered absolutely true but rather having correct reasoning. For logic can only determine “the distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning” (Copi, p.5) of a problem. Well these methods can be useful; it still can make a problem more confusing such as with the case of paradoxes. It is up to one to make the leap of faith to decide if the conclusions of the methods are acceptable in practice or not.

From a business perspective, working under government contracts can be a very lucrative proposition. In general, a stream of orders keep coming in, revenue increases and the company grows in the aggregate. The obvious downfalls to working in this manner is both higher quality expected as well as the extensive research and documentation required for government contracts. If a part fails to perform correctly it can cause minor glitches as well as problems that can carry serious repercussions, such as in the National Semiconductor case. When both the culpable component and company are found, the question arises of how extensive these repercussions should be. Is the company as an entity liable or do you look into individual employees within that company? From an ethical perspective one would have to look at the mitigating factors of both the employees and their superiors along with the role of others in the failure of these components. Next you would have to analyze the final ruling from a corporate perspective and then we must examine the macro issue of corporate responsibility in order to attempt to find a resolution for cases like these.

Modern China is an enigmatic country by today’s standards concerning economic values and political ideals. The “communist” government that Mao Zedong brutally sculpted and administered has gone through an intensive transformation. The days when Marxism and Socialism supposedly provided guidelines for Chinese economic policies have passed. Now the government exists as a quasi-communist authoritarian regime supported by a market economy.

Economic progress is commonly associated with democratization, and in many cases this theory holds true. Taiwan is the exemplary East Asian model of a formerly authoritarian regime turned democratic due in part to economic development. Yet some nations, Singapore for example, maintain healthy economies and high standards of living despite the presence of authoritarianism within the government. Although China has experienced noteworthy economic development over the past twenty years, its government has not made any significant progress towards democracy.