Read the following excerpt from levitt and dubner’s freakonomics. as it happens, feldman’s accidental study provides a window onto a form of cheating that has long stymied academics: white-collar crime. (yes, shorting the bagel man is white-collar crime, writ however small.) it might seem ludicrous to address as large and intractable a problem as white-collar crime through the life of a bagel man. but often a small and simple question can chisel away at the biggest problems. despite all the attention paid to rogue companies like enron, academics know very little about the practicalities of white-collar crime. the reason? there are no good data. a key fact of white-collar crime is that we hear about only the very slim fraction of people who are caught cheating. most embezzlers lead quiet and theoretically happy lives; employees who steal company property are rarely detected. what purpose does the “bagel man” serve in this argument? a a claim b example c conclusion d counterclaim
The authors state that their main purpose is to examine what is known as white-collar crime. Most of the information they include in the passage relates to this topic. However, the authors also state that the case of the bagel man, although apparently small and inconsequential, serves to illustrate the characteristics of a bigger problem. Therefore, the case of the bagel man serves as an example to examine white-collar crime at large.
The book "Freakonomics" written by an economist Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner is a book in which the authors appeal to theirs readers to apply the tools and concepts in their economical life.
In each chapter, they come up with some unusual questions.
In the given excerpt, the authors have used the "bagel man" as an example to show the seriousness of white collar crime. To give further clarity to his argument about the seriousness he used the example of the bagel man though ludicrous.
So, the answer to the question is B: an example.
In this excerpt, the authors try to describe white-collar crime which is another name for cheating in business environment. For that reason, they give an example of Enron scandal, almost the biggest financial fraud scheme in history. The authors claim that people who represent the intellectual division don't know enough about the seriousness of the issue when the cheaters lead quiet and happy lives. Working through the answers, we can easily deduce that the correct answer is C.
The right answer is letter C) to show the seriousness of cheating.
This excerpt draws readers attention to the fact that cheating, however small it may seem, is serious. Shorting the bagel man is a much a white-collar crime as embezzling is. Even though it may sound as a funny argument, the purpose is likely to show people that cheaters are eveywhere, and that they get away with it. Only few are caught doing it and, when they are, it is usually the "big shots". Still, all sorts of cheating constitute the same crime. It is, thus, a serious matter.
They use the bagel man to shed light on white-collar crime
In adding "shorting the bagel man" and stating it is white-collar crime they pull attention to the term and all that it encompasses, in a funny but clear way, making the reader consider what it knows about the topic and want more of the explanation to come.