What is Larmer’s criticism of Duska’s argument?

Loyalty is relative.
Loyalty does not need to be reciprocal, it can still be directed at persons in the firm and not merely to the firm, an economic motive does not rule out a moral justification for whistleblowing.
Both A and B are true.
Neither A and B are true.

Read, read, read ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=Larmer%E2%80%99s+criticism+of+Duska%E2%80%99s+argument&oq=Larmer%E2%80%99s+criticism+of+Duska%E2%80%99s+argument&aqs=chrome..69i57.2052j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

To determine Larmer's criticism of Duska's argument, we need to evaluate the statements provided.

The first statement, "Loyalty is relative," suggests that loyalty is not an absolute concept and can vary depending on the individual or situation. However, this statement does not directly criticize Duska's argument.

The second statement, "Loyalty does not need to be reciprocal, it can still be directed at persons in the firm and not merely to the firm, an economic motive does not rule out a moral justification for whistleblowing," provides a potential criticism of Duska's argument. Duska may argue that loyalty should be directed towards the firm as a whole, while Larmer may believe that loyalty can also be directed towards specific individuals within the firm. Additionally, Larmer may propose that an economic motive, such as whistleblowing for personal gain, does not necessarily negate the moral justification for such actions.

Based on the statements provided, it can be deduced that Larmer's criticism aligns with the second statement. Therefore, the correct option is "Loyalty does not need to be reciprocal, it can still be directed at persons in the firm and not merely to the firm, an economic motive does not rule out a moral justification for whistleblowing." This indicates that Larmer's criticism is directed at Duska's argument.