Q8

[NatalieC941]

I understand how E is the correct answer, but I had difficulty eliminating both A and D.

Can someone possibly let me know if my thinking in eliminating each is correct?

(A) I think this might be too narrow. Specifically it sums up the main point to be related to "Because not all corporate crimes are detected" as the (implicit) main reason for needing to supplement reckoning of cost and benefit with detection ratios. Additionally, it fails to mention anything about the final paragraph that suggest "moral weight" should also be considered. Because of these reasons, it should be eliminated.

(D) This was also tempting to me since it contains all of the main topics discussed within the passage. However, the mention of "resulting in penalties that are not high enough both to satisfy community moral standards" threw me off a bit. While the author suggests moral weight should possibly be considered, this isn't a central tenet of his argument. Therefore, this additional piece of unsupported informations makes it an incorrect answer.



Meanwhile [E] presents the correct answer as more general, but the "Because THIS, then THAT" structure is cohesive and makes sense.


If anyone has further insight, I would appreciate hearing it!

[andrewgong01]

I understand how E is the correct answer, but I had difficulty eliminating both A and D.

Can someone possibly let me know if my thinking in eliminating each is correct?

(A) I think this might be too narrow. Specifically it sums up the main point to be related to "Because not all corporate crimes are detected" as the (implicit) main reason for needing to supplement reckoning of cost and benefit with detection ratios. Additionally, it fails to mention anything about the final paragraph that suggest "moral weight" should also be considered. Because of these reasons, it should be eliminated.

(D) This was also tempting to me since it contains all of the main topics discussed within the passage. However, the mention of "resulting in penalties that are not high enough both to satisfy community moral standards" threw me off a bit. While the author suggests moral weight should possibly be considered, this isn't a central tenet of his argument. Therefore, this additional piece of unsupported informations makes it an incorrect answer.



Meanwhile [E] presents the correct answer as more general, but the "Because THIS, then THAT" structure is cohesive and makes sense.


If anyone has further insight, I would appreciate hearing it!

Here are my thoughts after completing the prep test:

Actual Pre-Phase scribbled on the side "Economist= flawed; need a new approach". This matches "E" pretty well.


Choice A: Seems to be a scope and unsupported issue. The scope is what you mentioned that it includes nothing in the end about how we can not have a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) approach to punishments. Moreover, "A" seems unsupported too because the author is saying discerning the ratio is not enough (as per last paragraph) because if we appeal to this method the punishments will be so draconian that they drives companies into bankruptcy. Choice A seems to insinuate that we need to take into account of detection ratios and then we are good to go whereas the passage says that it is not good enough to just use a detection ratio. In some senses this also seems to be a scope issue depending on how we look at it but in the end the issue is that the passage says the detection ratio is not enough of a modification to the economists' proposal to make the economists' approach 'good' .


Choice D : I think it is a scope issue. The passage did not seem to say that the issue with the economists' approach is that it is not "high enough to satisfy the moral standards of communities ... [and send a warning message to others]". RAther the passage says the economists simply disregard moral concerns; however, it is a jump to say that disregarding moral concerns means we did not meet /exceed the moral concerns of the people. Perhaps, as a by product, the economists' proposal also instills some moral values unintentionally. This also seems pretty similar to your line of reasoning.

Other Choices :
B: Directly contradicts as the CBA approach is not appropriate or sufficient.

C: "corporate morality" is rather arbitrary and out of scope; hence "C" can not be the correct answer. C's other issue is that it makes it sound like the main point of the passage was how the economists' approach do an injustice against communities; however, the author's objection to the approach was not around the injustice against communities; rather it was on how practical it was.

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with you two.

(A) it's because detection ratios aren't being taken into account that we need another method, not "because NOT ALL crimes are detected".

The author (and the courts) wouldn't be troubled if detection ratios were above 50%, so it's okay if "not all" are detected. But if only 10% are detected, then we gotta adjust our penalty.

(D) "Satisfying community standards" is definitely nowhere to be found in our author's big two paragraphs of opinion. Also, the thrust of this answer is that "penalties aren't high enough", which is probably something the author would agree with, but she'd also be concerned about us making them TOO high (draconian levels of punishment), so this answer doesn't aim for that 'sweet spot' the author is pushing for.

[WinnieL80]

I'm new to the forum and am unable to post a separate new topic perhaps due to some technical error. So I have to post my questions regarding Q12 here. Sorry for the troubles!! (and please do help me if you could create another thread on Q12)

I initially chose C and though I now get why A is correct, I am still confused as to why C is an incorrect answer choice.

As a matter of fact, these two answers doesn't seem much different to me...is A better than C because it states "a question is raised" in the beginning?

But this difference seem a little trivial to render another contender incorrect. Why is it so important? Please help me in understanding this question better, thanks in advance!