Corporate Crime

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct51% picked this

   The possibility of a corporation’s going out of business should not be a factor in determining the size of the penalty levied against

   Why this is right

   Yes, this is derivable from our 1st of the three tidbits. These economists think "the sole (only) basis for determining penalty is reckoning of cost and benefit, in the sense that the cost of the penalty must outweigh the benefit (profit) of the crime." The possibility of a corporation's going out of business is thus no part of the basis for determining penalties. We could write an infinite number of possible correct answers here, because if you say "The sole basis for determining A is X", then you know that - B should not be a factor in determining A - C should not be a factor in determining A - mayonnaise should not be a factor in determining A - roller coasters should not be a factor in determining A LSAT frequently regurgitates a claim like "The only valid X is Y" into an answer choice like "Something that is only Z would not qualify as Y".

   Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   51%
2. B

   Moral Weight vs. Penalty24% picked this

   The community’s opinion of the moral offensiveness of a corporate crime should not be a factor in assigning a

   This answer starts out dreamy, but our 3rd tidbit was saying that "community's moral outrage / message-sending should not be a factor in determining penalties. It can still be a factor in assigning moral shaming, just not in terms of assigning a price tag.

   24%
3. C

   Out of Scope8% picked this

   The moral offensiveness of a corporate crime should not be a factor in determining the penalty levied against the corporation unless it tends to

   Out of Scope: unless it increases size The economists never provide any qualification or caveat to their statement. Moral offensiveness "should not be a factor in determining penalties". Period. Full stop. Since they didn't hedge that statement with some "UNLESS exception", we can't attribute some hedged version of that statement to them. The exception this answer choice is describing is sort of humorous, because moral offensiveness would almost always tend to increase the size of the penalty. That's the common sense understanding of how a community's moral abhorrence would affect potential penalties! So this "exception" would be constantly occurring, which makes it sound silly as a principle. Like if I said, "You should not drive at night, unless your headlights tend to illuminate the road in front of you."

   8%
4. D

   Contradicted10% picked this

   The likelihood of a corporation’s recommitting a particular crime should be the main factor in determining the size of the penalty levied against

   This contradicts our first tidbit: - SOLE basis for penalty for corporate wrongdoing should be that the penalty for the crime outweighs whatever profits were obtained by means of the crime. This answer is saying that something different (likelihood of repeat offense) should be the main factor / the primary basis for determining the penalty.

   10%
5. E

   Contradicted7% picked this

   The penalty levied against a corporation for a particular crime should increase in direct relation to the number of times the corporation has

   This contradicts our first tidbit: - SOLE basis for penalty for corporate wrongdoing should be that the penalty for the crime outweighs whatever profits were obtained by means of the crime. This answer is saying that something different (how many times this infraction has been committed in the past) should be the main factor / the primary basis for determining the penalty.

   7%