Subscription pricing
passage 2
The following passage is adapted from an article published in 1993.
P1
███ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ █ █████████ █████████████ █ █████ ██ █████ █ ███████████ ███████ ████ █████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███
Question ·
How severe should punishment be for corporate crime?
E.g., crime where a corporation profits from harming consumers
Economists' Answer ·
Depends solely on a cost-benefit analysis
E.g., if profits were $6 million, then a fine in excess of that would suffice
P2
██ ███████ █████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ █ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ █ ███████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████████ ███ ████ ███ ███████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████ █████████████ ███ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██████ ██████ █████████████ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ █████ █████████
Economists' Answer ·
Punishment should only affect earnings
Morality should not be a factor in determining the punishment
P3
███ ████ ████████ █████ ██████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███
Critique / Major Premise ·
Economists' approach is impractical
Sub-premise ·
Cost-benefit analysis must account for estimated detection ratios
Not every crime is detected. If corporations were punished only for the crimes that are detected, they would actually be incentivized to keep committing the crime and reaping profits.
Sub-premise ·
Accounting for detection ratios greatly increases severity of financial penalites
E.g., if detection ratio is 1-in-10, then the penalty has to be at least 10 times profit. If penalty is only, say 5x profit, then it's worth it for the company to keep committing that crime.
P4
███ ███████████ ████████ ████████ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ █████ █████ ███ ████████████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ████████ ███ █████████ ████████████ ███ ██ ████████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ███
Sub-premise ·
Actual detection ration is closer to 1-in-10
Such high fines might put corporations out of business and throw thousands of people out of work. That's not practical.
Main Point ·
Another criterion for punishment, in addition to cost-benefit analysis, must be considered
For example, we could assign moral weight to particular crimes to determine a punishment that is just and practical
Passage Style
Critique or debate
10.
Suppose a corporation is convicted ██ █ █████ ██████ █ █████████ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████
a
a fine exactly █████ ██ ███ █████████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████
b
a fine slightly ██████ ████ ███ █████████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████
c
a fine enough ██████ ████ ███ █████████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ███████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██ ████████
d
a fine determined ██ ██████ ███ █████████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ █████
e
a fine high ██████ ██ ███ ███ ███████████ ███ ██ ████████