Question

Goodwin clearly believes that conservative attacks on the bureaucracy are dangerous because they could "discourage the best and the brightest from pursuing a career in public service" and they could "further poison the public's perception of the bureaucracy in a way that undermines its institutional legitimacy and credibility." He argues that this could even discourage whistleblowers from coming forward in the future. How convincing is this argument to anyone who does not already agree with him? Do other conclusions follow from his argument and evidence?

a. Very Convincing; Yes

b. Somewhat Convincing; No

c. Not Convincing; Yes

d. Not Convincing; No

Answer 1

Goodwin's argument that conservative attacks on the bureaucracy could discourage talented individuals from pursuing careers in public service and further damage the public's perception of the bureaucracy is very convincing. Therefore, the correct option is B.

Step-by-step explanation:

Goodwin's argument that conservative attacks on the bureaucracy could discourage talented individuals from pursuing careers in public service and further damage the public's perception of the bureaucracy is very convincing. By attacking the bureaucracy, conservative politicians risk undermining the legitimacy and credibility of public institutions, which could deter highly qualified individuals from entering public service. Additionally, if the public distrusts the bureaucracy, potential whistleblowers may be less likely to come forward in the future. Goodwin's argument is persuasive, as it highlights the potential consequences of conservative attacks on the bureaucracy.