Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department.

Argument

Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department.  We already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it.  We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working–not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are.  

Answer

The author's argument that no stronger regulation and no enforcement are needed to keep companies legal has some critical flaws caused by omitting several important factors.  As following, the argument should include how effective the current code was since last year, what the specific violation that the current regulation referred to is, and what kind of illegal activity is frequently committed.  

To begin with, there is no explanation about how illegal cases are decreased since the current regulation.  According to the author, the current code, which the argument declares effectiveness since its relevance to specific case, was approved within last year to fit modern business environment.  If the code is effective enough to prevent companies from committing violations, there should be some comparison of data showing how environment has been changed before and after the current code.  

Additionally, the author failed to define what case the current code was referred to when it was set force.  The argument mentions that the code was responded to specific violations committed by companies in the past.  However, without knowing what cases or activities were referred to, it is difficult for everyone to determine whether the code is strong enough not to add other ones as the author states.  

Furthermore, those violations frequently committed should be discussed when the code was taken effect even if it was relevant to some specific recent cases because the reference cases cannot be always a benchmark that companies usually or commonly violate.  For example, if the reference cases were complex structure of fraud deals in stock exchange market among security companies and investment banks, no one can be sure that the current code can keep companies away from illegal actions because the reference is very specific and occurred in a specific industry.  

As mentioned above, the argument still omits showing some significant factors to consider such as comparison of business environment before and after the current code, specific cases that the code referred to, and frequent and common cases that companies have committed.  Being convincing requires to address all possible aspects that the argument could reach to.