Q13

[julianalsarhn]

This question really stumped me! I went through each choice, eliminating every single one. Couldn't find support for any of them, very confused how it could be A. I'm sure this is a question that you arrive at through P.O.E., however.

The author mentions that putting a company out of business because of a steep penalty (when the ratio of risk is taken into account) is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the issue and would put thousands out of work, the author then makes the plea for an alternate unnamed solution. I don't see how the economist would not want going-out-of-business to be a factor. is there anywhere in the passage that alludes to the economists' thoughts on this? I understand that author is generally opposed to the economists' view that penalty should be about cost/benefit, but does that extend to this point as well?

Thanks in advance!

[728610]

Firstly, it is an inference question.

From the line 5-6, we know that "the economists argue that the sole basis for determining the penalty should be the reckoning of cost and benefit", so anything else (including the possibility of a corporation's going out of business) should not be a factor. that is exactly what A said.

B: it is tempting, but the economists never said community's opinion of the moral offensiveness should not be a factor in assigning a moral weight to that crime, we just knew it should not be a factor in determining penalties (line 15-17).
C: unless it tends to increase the size of the penalty? The economists never said it.
D: the economists never said it.
E: the economists never said it.

I hope this answer could help.