PT1.S3.Q9 - Environmentally damaging accidents

jkmiscx

I understand why the answer is A, however I do not understand why it cannot also be D. I know there is only one answer I am just unsure why D is definitively wrong. Thanks #HELP

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

BlueRiceCake

Even if they treat fines as an ordinary business expenditure, why would they want to pay a lot of money for a business expenditure?

elevator_music

The conclusion tells us that because businesses care about profits they will do this other thing--install safeguards. But does this conclusion need to follow? What if I told you that businesses were 100% confident they would not be responsible for any accidents and they care about profits, would they still feel that it makes sense for them to spend money on preventing accidents that they know won't happen? Yeah, no. Option A is a milder critique along the same vein--it tells us that while they are not 100% confident accidents won't happen, they still wayyy underestimate the risk which suggests that they might not find the financial incentive to safeguard themselves against something unlikely to happen.

B on the other hand basically reiterates the premise---businesses are obsessed with profits. Cool. But does that tell us how likely or not they are to deem these preventative tactics useful for them? You could infer for example that because they have a long term strategy then they must be aware that say over a 20 period year they're more likely to have an accident, but you need to make a leap there for B to weaken whereas A is solid as is and does not require more work on your behalf. And as such, it is the answer that MOST weakens.