#13 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Subject Perspective

[ericau02]

This really confusing, in reference to ac (B) how is this not the economist view? When I went over question 11, one of the staff referenced lines 12-15 and stated that the economist do not think that the communities values should be a factor, someone just said they think they are..? why does LSAC make everything so convoluted its so fustrating

[ericau02]

That's a lot to digest, but let me see what I can do here!

First, we have to stick to what the passage says, and base our answer solely on that. The economists in the passage are given only one view - not a naive one and then a reformed, better one. That one view they hold is "the sole basis for determining the penalty should be the reckoning of cost and benefit: the penalty levied should exceed the profit that accrued to the corporation as a result of committing the crime."

It is the author, and not the economists, who goes on to say that their view is problematic because it requires that detection rates be high enough for it to make good sense, and that detection rates are not nearly high enough for that. We can't know if the economists ever gave any thought to detection rates, or if they overestimated them. All we know is that the author thinks their view is too simplistic, that it fails to address a key issue, and that it also overlooks the unintended consequence of harming workers.

So for this question, forget detection rates. Focus solely on what we know the economists said. If the sole basis for determining penalties should be that the penalty exceeds the profit from the crime, then nothing else matters. Going out of business, detection rates, the possibility of committing the crime again or the rate of them having been convicted in the past - all of it is out the window in their eyes. That's why we can and should select answer A - the text of the passage supports it in plain language.

I get this, but can't B be correct as well, if nothing else matters? wouldn't communities moral weight not matter as well. I am still not seeing how B is incorrect, can someone explain it differently?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Erica,

I think I see where your confusion lies. Here, answer choice (B) discusses community values not to talk about penalties for corporate crimes. Answer choice (B) talks about community values in reference to MORAL weight to the crime. That's completely different than setting a monetary penalty, and it's something that is not fully addressed by the passage. We only know how the economists view setting monetary penalties, not about assigning moral weight to various activities. Since we don't know what the economists think about moral weight, we have to eliminate answer choice (B).

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[quan-tang@hotmail.com]

sorry I dont see how D is incorrect.
'Some economists argue that the sole basis for determining the penalty should be the reckoning of cost and benefit... if the potential penalty is somewhat larger than the profit to be gained from violating the law it may still ultimately be more profitable to repeatedly commit the crime...The economists’ approach requires that detection ratios be high enough for courts to ignore them'

It seems the economist's approach, which uses reckoning of cost and benefit, is based on the rate for corporation to recommit the crime.

[quan-tang@hotmail.com]

while, A, it is true economist never discussed 'The possibility of a corporation’s going out of business', but can we then conclude economist believe it should not be a factor, simply based on the fact that economist never discussed it?

Especially when the whole 'detection rate' thing was solely proposed by the author, not the economist. if we just follow economist's recommendation, they simply recommendated to fine more than the gain of the case, which is unlikely to cause corporation going out of business anyway. Author explicitly inferred economist failed to consider this possibility. Then how can we just a possibility that economists do not even conside, as the basis that they believe it should not be a factor?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi quan-tang!

There's clear support for answer choice (A) starting at line 4: "Some economists argue that the sole basis for determining the penalty should be the reckoning of cost and benefit." These are the economists that the author of the passage goes on to discuss, and this language is explicit that the "sole basis" for them is a reckoning of cost and benefit.