Found this elsewhere and it was helpful. 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.

If the author concludes, without justification, that only two options exist, that's called a false dilemma. In this case, the author says that it's important to maintain profitability, and based on that premise alone, concludes that only two options remain.

If the author had opened the passage with a statement of fact (e.g., "There are only two ways to win at Game X..." - ie: as a PREMISE), we would have to accept that as true. The author presents a premise and concludes that there are only two options (attempting to base this conclusion on insufficient evidence).

If an author concludes, based on evidence that is insufficient, that only two choices remain, that is a false dilemma.

Hi - is this still the same / not certain how to find the pinned question, as it seems format has changed. Can you assist?

What was the similar question (just curious)?