We would eliminate C here for two reasons. First, the passage begins with a question of how severe should the punishment be for corporate crime, and then goes on to offer competing answers to this question. C doesn't get at the fact that the passage is attempting to answer a question. Secondly, we aren't analyzing the ethics of those who hold the view, rather merely discussing whether or not we think the view is effective or practical (C says we are discussing and finding flaws in the ethics, which we aren't doing).
AneeshUon June 7, 2022
So let me break down my answer here.
A view is summarized; --- "Some economists argue that the sole basis for determining the penalty should be the reckoning of cost and benefit"
the ethics of those who hold the view are discussed; --- second para, specifically "economists hold that X should not be a factor in determining penalties" --- I didn't understand the logic for why this statement does not constitute a discussion of ethics. As far as I can tell, the statement that 'X should not be a factor in penalties' is clearly a judgement on morality. It's in the passage, so its being discussed, and the people whose ethics are being discussed are the economists.
a flaw in the ethics of those holding the view is identified and described in detail; --- third para, specifically "acceptable reckoning of cost and benefit needs to take into account estimated detection ratios"
the view is rejected; --- "Thus, some other criterion in addition to the reckoning of cost and benefit-such as the assignment of moral weight to particular crimes—is necessary"
an alternative view is offered. --- same as above
Regarding your first point - the passage doesn't really offer competing answers because the only answer offered is the one opinion which the economists hold, right? Could you please point out the competing answer? At line 20, the pivot is towards the flaw, so I didn't take this to be a competing answer.
