Hi,
I have a doubt in CR question 13 of online question bank. The argument is as below:
The public often protests when an unregulated service industry is found to be corrupt. However, regulation often leads to increased costs for the consumer. Fewer companies survive in a regulated market, leading to decreased competition and higher prices.The public then responds negatively to the increased costs of these services.
The statements above best support which of the following?
(A)Service industries should not be regulated.
(B)The public should not protest unregulated services.
(C)Only unregulated services are subject to public protest.
(D)The public is sometimes the cause of its own complaints.
(E)Decreased competition always leads to increased prices.
Explanation has been given as--The passage describes how public complaints about one issue (corruption in unregulated service industries) can have consequences (increased costs) that lead to new public complaints.
My doubt is whether it has been mentioned in the passage(implicitly/explicitly) that the only way of removing corruption from Unregulated industry is to replace it with regulated one.
They have mentioned the disadvantage of regulation, but nowhere it is clear that regulation is the only way to remove corruption from unregulated industry. Should we assume that corruption free unregulated industry is not possible.
Please clarify this doubt.