#27 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Author’s Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[funky_fancy_name]

I'm having troubles with "in a significant number cases" I'm not finding any references to it any where in the passage. Appreciate any helps!

[Adam Tyson]

That answer is based on what we might call a negative inference, funky_fancy_name. That means that rather than finding the evidence clearly and directly stated, we will find it in the fact that if the answer was untrue, some claim in the argument would not make sense.

In this case, in the second paragraph the author has claimed that the inability to find "an identifiable victim with the necessary resources to commence litigation" makes civil litigation an insufficient deterrent to wrongdoing. If such victims could be found much of the time, this claim would carry little weight, because the presence of such victims would mean many cases against corporations could move forward, providing the very deterrent the author seeks through criminal liability. In order for that inability to find victims to be a real problem for civil liability proponents, it must be a common enough problem that corporations aren't really worried about it. Hence, answer E must be true in order for the author's argument in favor of criminal liability to hold up.

[madisonzill]

I am still a bit confused on this question. Can you elaborate?

[Robert Carroll]

madison,

I'm not sure you're asking for any more explanation of why answer choice (E) is correct, but if I were to attempt it, it would basically be to repeat what Adam said above, which is a perfect explanation. If you need more help with that, let me know!

Assuming it's a wrong answer that's giving you trouble, I'll go over why each other answer is wrong in brief:

Answer choice (A) is wrong because it looks opposite to the author's opinion. The author thinks that criminal sanctions are more impactful than civil, but this answer reverses that.

Answer choice (B) is just never discussed, and might even mildly conflict with the author's view that corporate criminal liability can ALSO be used in the cases discussed in this answer, which makes it odd to say that civil liability has this as its "main function". If the main function of X is to do something, it would be odd if a rival thing Y could also do that thing very well in many circumstances. It's not necessarily false, but it seems pretty far from the author's opinion.

Answer choice (C) has no basis in the passage.

Answer choice (D) is not a view of the critics ever mentioned.

Robert Carroll

[mkarimi73]

I chose (A) because of the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Even if it is less economical, however, criminal liability is a much stronger deterrent." Thus, this implies that while criminal liability and civil liability can both deter corporate wrongdoing, the author argues that criminal liability is "stronger" than the two. And, the author even goes on to say in the last paragraph that it is "the most effective way to ensure corporations improve their practices..." Based on the wording of the sentence I cited above, this does not preclude civil liability from being a deterrent either.

So, I was enticed by (A) given its wording: "In many instances (i.e. at least one), corporations that are not deterred by the threat of criminal sanctions would be deterred by the threat of civil sanctions." Meaning, that in a least one circumstance, civil liability could potentially still act as a deterrent.

Yet, based on what you guys have said, the test-makers were looking for something different. They were looking for a "negative inference." Therefore, my question is, how can I figure out what the test-makers are testing on a #27 question in a timed scenario, since all of the answer choices are clearly not helpful? In addition, (E) seems to speak to the frequency of cases where the corporation engages in wrongdoing that avoids victims with money to sue. I can't find evidence in the passage to support this. What's the proper strategy here?

[Robert Carroll]

mkarimi73,

The first paragraph you wrote shows why answer choice (A) is not correct. If criminal sanctions are stronger, then they would work in more situations than civil sanctions. In what situation, then, would a corporation be deterred by civil sanctions and not by criminal? Criminal are stronger - they therefore work in MORE situations, when civil sanctions aren't good enough. If the stronger sanctions (criminal) don't work, the weaker ones (civil) wouldn't work either. Thus, answer choice (A) is an opposite answer.

Answer choice (E) isn't too hard to find - you can control + F on the test! If I do so, I see "resources" discussed in the middle of the second paragraph, which is exactly the basis for answer choice (E). People need sufficient resources to litigate. The author says this "weakens" the deterrent impact of civil litigation. If everyone harmed had the resources to sue, that wouldn't make sense. Thus, the author must think there are people out there who are harmed, but lack resources to pursue a suit to redress that harm. That proves answer choice (E).

Robert Carroll

[lemonade42]

Hi, I'm still confused on how we get to E. I understand the part where Robert said "the author must think there are people out there who are harmed, but lack resources to pursue a suit to redress that harm". But the answer says "people that are not harmed"?

[Dana D]

Hey lemonade,

Answer choice (E) says that most of the time, corporations are engaging in wrongdoing that doesn't harm anyone with the resources to sue. In the second paragraph, the author says that "the fact that private civil litigation requires an identifiable victim with the necessary resources to commence litigation weakens its (civil litigation's) deterrent impact." In other words, most of the time there must not be identifiable victims with the resources to sue. This is essentially what answer choice (E) says as well - most of the time, corporations are harming people who don't have the resources to sue.

Does that make sense?