Write a personal narrative about a time when you broke a rule describe the reason you broke the rule,and reflect on the consequence of your action
Answers
Answer:
Explanation:
On the face of it, this seems like a really devious question. The potential to say the wrong thing is huge. But don’t worry, the recruiter isn’t asking this question in an attempt to see you fail. There’s a very good reason why this question might be asked and some fairly easy ways to answer it.
Let’s start by looking at why an airline recruiter would be interested in asking a potential new member of Cabin Crew this question. Do you remember the infamous United Airlines incident where Dr David Dao was forcibly removed from an aircraft? The flight was overbooked and passengers weren’t willing to delay their journeys for the small amount of compensation being offered by airline staff.
So the gate agents and Flight Attendants simply followed company rules and offloaded three passengers. One, Dr Dao, refused to go – the rest, as they say, is history.
Mark as brainlist ✌✌
Answer:
There can be many reason to break rules.
I break rules whenever I realize, with a sufficient amount of certainty, that the reason why the rule was established does not apply well in my case. Example: I'm walking in the city and have to cross a narrow street, but the light has just turned red to me. I look around and I see that there are no cars coming, thus I decide I can safely cross the street, as it does no good to anyone for me to just stand there waiting for my green. The reason why there is a semaphore is so that cars and people can alternate each other without having to settle down a plan among themselves: if there are no cars at the moment, I don't have to share the street with anyone to start with.
This might be a silly example, but it hints upon a much greater and nobler concept: It's basically the old "letter vs spirit of the law" conflict. The conflict revolves the unanswered question: should we follow rules as they are written, or as they are intended to be? If you choose either way you will have some negative side effects. Defining a set of rules can easily leave out some special cases in which maybe another behavior would be preferred, or it can lead to very very complex rules, if they try hard to include all possible cases. Following them strictly leaves you either following sub-optimal directions (*even* from the point of view of who wrote the rule), or getting confused by all the complexity and unsure of what you should do. This is what happens when you follow "the letter of the law". Notice that "following a rule" is often much closer to this interpretation than the following.
If you instead try to interpret "the spirit of the law", you will start to struggle with other people, who will then inevitably have different interpretations, subjective biases, manipulations and twists of the sort. The greatest flaw of this choice is that there really is no rule written on stone: the rule itself becomes a much vaguer suggestion, and one should be wary of correctly interpreting the "spirit", i.e. the original intent which brought to write the rule, which is in general by no means an easy task.