Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    LCT Assignment 1

    Uploaded by

    Nawaal Nazim
    The case study discusses a collision between two race car drivers, Ed and Ray, during a competition. Ray's team manager argues that Ray deliberately caused the collision to win the championship, as Ray was leading by one point. However, the summary states this is not strong evidence as intentions cannot be proven and she is biased. An eyewitness, Akram, who was behind the two cars, claims Ray did not swerve to avoid the collision. But the summary says Akram's view may not have been clear and he cannot say for certain it was deliberate. Race officials said there was spray which made visibility poor and it looked like an accident. Therefore, Akram's statement should not impact the outcome, as the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    LCT Assignment 1

    Uploaded by

    Nawaal Nazim
    22 views2 pages
    The case study discusses a collision between two race car drivers, Ed and Ray, during a competition. Ray's team manager argues that Ray deliberately caused the collision to win the championship, as Ray was leading by one point. However, the summary states this is not strong evidence as intentions cannot be proven and she is biased. An eyewitness, Akram, who was behind the two cars, claims Ray did not swerve to avoid the collision. But the summary says Akram's view may not have been clear and he cannot say for certain it was deliberate. Race officials said there was spray which made visibility poor and it looked like an accident. Therefore, Akram's statement should not impact the outcome, as the

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    LCT Assignment 1-converted

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case study discusses a collision between two race car drivers, Ed and Ray, during a competition. Ray's team manager argues that Ray deliberately caused the collision to win the championship, as Ray was leading by one point. However, the summary states this is not strong evidence as intentions cannot be proven and she is biased. An eyewitness, Akram, who was behind the two cars, claims Ray did not swerve to avoid the collision. But the summary says Akram's view may not have been clear and he cannot say for certain it was deliberate. Race officials said there was spray which made visibility poor and it looked like an accident. Therefore, Akram's statement should not impact the outcome, as the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    22 views2 pages

    LCT Assignment 1

    Uploaded by

    Nawaal Nazim
    The case study discusses a collision between two race car drivers, Ed and Ray, during a competition. Ray's team manager argues that Ray deliberately caused the collision to win the championship, as Ray was leading by one point. However, the summary states this is not strong evidence as intentions cannot be proven and she is biased. An eyewitness, Akram, who was behind the two cars, claims Ray did not swerve to avoid the collision. But the summary says Akram's view may not have been clear and he cannot say for certain it was deliberate. Race officials said there was spray which made visibility poor and it looked like an accident. Therefore, Akram's statement should not impact the outcome, as the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Department: Management Sciences

    Course: Logical and Critical Thinking


    Assignment: 1
    Case Study: Collision Course
    Topic: Activity
    Submitted To: Sir Adil Khushi
    Submitted by: Nawaal Nazim
    Roll No: BBA-F-19-14
    CASE STUDY: COLLISION COURSE

    Activity 1

    What is the team manager’s argument for blaming Crowe for the incident? How strong is her statement as evidence
    against Crowe?

    Answer

    ‘It was no surprise, either,’ she added. ‘With Ed out of the race, Crowe knew he had won the championship. Of
    course he meant to do it.’ This statement shows that the team manager is blaming Ray on the basis of his intentions
    which she can neither guess nor can prove her assumption or blame on the basis of this claim that Ray deliberately
    forced Ed out of the race just because he was defending his one point lead. Besides this she is biased and angry as
    well at the moment. She is depending a lot on the intention of Ray and it is not much strong evidence which can lead
    towards the conclusion and result alone because of the fact that if someone stands to gain from some act or other
    does not mean he or she will commit that act.

    As participants of race Ed and Ray have financial or other benefits in the outcome of the race. As a team manager of
    Ed she has also the benefits in the result concluded from the race which can also be a reason of her statement. But
    jumping to a conclusion without any strong evidence and witness would not help her against Ray Crowe.

    Activity 2

    How reliable is Akram as a witness? Consider what he has to say in the light of other information and evidence
    available. What impact should his statement have on the outcome of the inquiry?

    Answer

    Akram is an eyewitness because he was just behind Ed and Ray in the race. However, it could not be proved that
    Ray intentionally collided with Ed, by just uttering words about Ray based on Akram’s point of view like Ed’s team
    manager regarding Ray’s motive of winning the championship again and defending his one point lead against Ed.

    The position of Akram on the road at the time of collision must be noticeable while deciding what he saw was much
    clear or not because Akram says that Ray doesn’t swerved but at the same time he claims that Ray could avoid the
    crash. As a driver he can suggest that how the accident could be avoided but could not firmly claim that Ray did the
    collision intentionally.

    The statement of the race officials must also be focused upon as he said that there was a lot of spray when the two
    cars rounded the bend and it just looks like an accident, which shows the weakness of the statement of Akram about
    what he saw and believe. Hence the collision can be a result of carelessness by any of the two drivers or could be
    their evil intentions against each other as competitors or was just an accident.

    From all the above discussions it is concluded that Waleed Akram is not capable of claiming anything which can
    influence the inquiry towards the conclusion.

    You might also like