OPEN BOOK

MID-TERM EXAMINATION

ETIKA ENJINIRING / ENGINEERING ETHICS

TIN406 – TIN71

Session: Semester 1 – AY 2021/2022 Date: 28 October 2021

Faculty: Engineering and Computer Science Duration: 100 minutes

[3.40 PM – 5.20 PM]
Study Program: Industrial Engineering Permitted Materials:
N/A

Level of Study: Undergraduate (S1)

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES:
1. Check the following exam paper information:
Exam paper:
 Total number of pages : 5 (including this page)
 Attached materials : N/A
 Total number of sections : 1
 Total number of questions : 4
Instructions:
You are required to answer all questions. The total number of marks
you can be awarded is 100 marks. For specific instructions, please refer
to appropriate sections.

2. Please write your name and student ID on the exam paper and answer sheets.
Student Name ……………………………………………..
Student ID ……………………………………………..

3. Candidates may use this exam paper to write notes as necessary, but should not remove
it from the examination venue for any reason.

4. Any form of cheating or attempt to cheat is a serious offence leading to dismissal.

Mid-term Examination – Semester 1/ AY 2021/2022

INSTRUCTION: Each question refers to a given paragraph drawn from the case material we have discussed in
the class. First, you are required to read the paragraph carefully and subsequently infer an underlying problem
that you think it needs to be responded by ethical solution. Second, you are required to identify and select one
(1) sentence from any of your weekly reflection notes that you think most closely connected with the underlying
problem and most rightly fit to be used as reference to finding ethical solution. Third, you are required to write
argument why the idea reflected in the selected reference sentence can provide the best way to anticipate the
inferred underlying problem. The best answer is reflected in the robustness of argument. The best argument
usually consists of minimum eight (8) sentences, having a strong link between one sentence and the next
sentences as well as showing no internal contradiction. Imagine that you are facing a real ethical problem (its
context is shown in the paragraph) and you are obliged to responsibly make the best decision by referring to
values you have personally learned from our class sessions. You are required to answer all four (4) questions.
Do think carefully before writing your sentences. Start with the easiest question and go on with the more difficult
ones. You may type your answer by extending the available space right after the question. Upon completing all
your answers, please upload the file of your answer to the allocated Bakrie Information Gateway (BIG) portal
before the deadline of this exam.

Question-1 [25 marks], the paragraph: On October 14, 1979, part of the atrium roof collapsed during
construction. GCE [the structural engineer] conducted an investigation of the collapse and
determined that improper installation of a steel-to-concrete connection and inadequate provision
for expansion resulting from faulty workmanship caused the collapse. The hotel owner also had
an independent investigation conducted by structural engineering firm Seiden and Page that
reached the same conclusions. The owner and architect had directed GCE to check the design of
all the steel, including steel-to-steel and steel-to-concrete, connections in the atrium. However,
Gillum instructed Gregory Luth, who was an employee of GCE, to limit his design check to all
structural members comprising the atrium roof. Duncan believed that Luth was to do a design
check of all the atrium steel (Administrative Hearing Commission, 1985).
……….
It should be noted that if Gregory Luth had been instructed to inspect all of the atrium, and not
just its roof, Luth would have discovered flaws in the design of the second- and fourth-floor
walkways (Administrative Hearing Commission, 1985).

[Extracted from the case: 1981: Kansas City Hyatt Regency Skywalk Collapse]

Answer
The underlying problem (from the paragraph): …

The reference sentence (from your weekly reflection notes): …

Argument: …

Etika Enjiniring / Engineering Ethics Page 2 of 5

Mid-term Examination – Semester 1/ AY 2021/2022

Question-2 [25 marks], the paragraph: Engineering has never been “just about engineering”
decisions. It’s always been about: the customer “stuff”; the product “stuff”; the manufacturing
“stuff”; the marketing and sales “stuff”; the business “stuff”; …and finally, the engineering
“stuff.” … Engineering is a discipline that has rules, or we think it has objective rules, and it does,
to a point. Taken in isolation, engineering decisions can be made according to engineering rules,
but isolation can be deceiving. …people make emotional decisions and then look for reasons why
their decision was right. …Aha! An emotional decision! There was no objectively measurable
thing that entered into the decision matrix. …

[Extracted from the case: Engineering Is Much More Than 'Engineering Decisions'; By Henry Davis;
https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1320190#]

Answer
The underlying problem (from the paragraph): …

The reference sentence (from your weekly reflection notes): …

Argument: …

Etika Enjiniring / Engineering Ethics Page 3 of 5

Mid-term Examination – Semester 1/ AY 2021/2022

Question-3 [25 marks], the paragraph: Oren Etzioni, a well-known AI researcher, complains about
news coverage of potential long-term risks arising from future success in AI research. After
pointing the finger squarely at Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom and his recent
book, Superintelligence, Etzioni complains that Bostrom’s “main source of data on the advent of
human-level intelligence” consists of surveys on the opinions of AI researchers. He then surveys
the opinions of AI researchers, arguing that his results refute Bostrom’s. It’s important to
understand that Etzioni is not even addressing the reason Superintelligence has had the impact he
decries: its clear explanation of why superintelligent AI may have arbitrarily negative
consequences and why it’s important to begin addressing the issue well in advance. Bostrom does
not base his case on predictions that superhuman AI systems are imminent. 

[Extracted from the case: Yes, We Are Worried About the Existential Risk of Artificial Intelligence: A defense of the
warnings about AI in philosopher Nick Bostrom’s book Superintelligence. https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/11/02/156285/]

Answer:
The underlying problem (from the paragraph): …

The reference sentence (from your weekly reflection notes): …

Argument: …

Etika Enjiniring / Engineering Ethics Page 4 of 5

Mid-term Examination – Semester 1/ AY 2021/2022

Question-4 [25 marks], the paragraph: We cannot imagine if people’s money worth hundreds of
billion of rupiah will only become a collection of deserted buildings. Since it was initiated in
2014, the Hambalang project has been flaw in the planning. … From the permit aspect, for
example, it turns out that the project, handled by as PT Adhi Karya Tbk and PT Wijaya Karya
Tbk, does not have yet the environmental impact analysis (amdal) permit and this is clearly a
violation of the law. Another violation is breaching the building permit (IMB). From the permit
that is meant for a three-story building, the Hambalang has been expanded into with six floors.
Seen from the technical aspect, the project is even more complex. Sitting in a hilly area in
Hambalang village, Citeureup district, Bogor regency, West Java, the stability of land in the
area must be re-examined. Condition of the buildings must also be re-checked, whether they are
in a good condition or not. We certainly have not forgotten than in 2012, there were two
buildings that collapsed in the area due to landslide.

[Extracted from the case: The Hambalang Trap; https://en.tempo.co/amp/759467/the-hambalang-trap]

Answer:
The underlying problem (from the paragraph): …

The reference sentence (from your weekly reflection notes): …

Argument: …

----------- end of exam paper ---------------

Etika Enjiniring / Engineering Ethics Page 5 of 5