Self-study
If a corporation obtains funds fraudulently, then the penalty should take into account the corporation's use of those funds during the time it held them. ██ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████
Take Back the Profits
The principle has two parts. Trigger: a corporation obtains funds fraudulently. Outcome: the penalty should completely offset any profit the corporation made from using those funds.
The big idea is that the penalty should take back the profits. The wrongdoer shouldn't end up financially ahead because of the bad act.
Anticipation
We can make a fairly specific prediction. The correct answer should describe a situation where (1) someone commits a bad act, (2) they might make a profit or gain from that act, and (3) the response strips that gain away.
26.
Which one of the following ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██████
a
If a driver ██████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ██ █████████ ███████████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████ ███████████
This requires future maintenance demonstrations, which is preventative monitoring rather than taking back any profit. There's no profit at stake. The remedy in (A) addresses future risk, not potential gains from wrongful conduct.
b
If a factory ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ █████████ █████████ █████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████████
This requires the factory to spend money on compliance, but compliance costs aren't the same as paying back profits earned through violations. If the factory saved a million dollars by ignoring pollution rules, the principle would require it to pay that million dollars back. (B) just requires the factory to start following the law going forward, which lets it keep the savings it already pocketed.
You might be drawn to (B) because the factory does have to fork over some money. But the money goes toward fixing the future, not toward offsetting what was already gained.
c
If someone is █████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████████ ███ █████ ███ █ ██████████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ █ ███████ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ████████
This addresses who benefits from the community service, not whether the wrongdoer must give up any gain. There's nothing about the person performing the service being deprived of profit earned through their wrongdoing.
d
If an athlete ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ █████████████████████ ███████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████ █████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ █████████████
This is a future-only ban that leaves the athlete's prior gains untouched. Banning the athlete from future competitions feels like a real penalty, but (D) doesn't strip the athlete of medals already won, prize money already collected, or sponsorship deals already signed. Every benefit gained during the cheating stays with the cheater. The principle in the stimulus would require giving those gains back.
e
If a convicted ████████ ██████ █ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ███████ ██████ ██ █ █████ ██████
This is the only answer where the remedy takes back a benefit the wrongdoer earned through the bad act. The criminal turned their crime into a financial gain (the memoir might earn profit derived from having committed the crime, just as the corporation's profit comes from using funds obtained fraudulently). Sending the proceeds to charity offsets that gain, leaving the criminal no better off financially because of the crime. That mirrors the principle's requirement that the penalty completely offset the profit.