Q18

[uhdang]

Paper mill example is given to show that actions to maximize profit doesn’t necessarily provide the best outcome for the public. (Line 39-45)

Let's go to the answer choices.

A) Whether it is an actual case or not is not stated. The author only says it’s a possibility. For all we know, it could be a made-up scenario from the author.

B) Previous sentence says, “there is no guarantee that a given CEO will benefit the public by maximizing corporate profit.” (43-45) So, the author does argue that maximization of profits doesn't necessarily profit the public. Where "refuting" comes from is the last sentence of the previous paragraph where it reads, “CEO should still work to maximize profits, because that will turn out best for the public anyway.” So, economists claim for the maximizing profit even for the sake of public good, and this is exactly what the author is refuting. (Correct)

C) Enforcing ethical restriction on corporations is not illustrated in the passage. Economists rather claims for no need for such restriction since, according to them, maximizing the profit leads to public good.

D) This would be too general of a statement to make without getting to what we are focusing on.
Out of scope.

E) Too strong. No such claim has been claimed. Giving out an instance of acting against public good doesn't claims that corporations are incapable of acting morally.

[keonheecho]

Hi,
Im still unsure about answer choice A, especially because the answer choice says "obligated" rather than morally obligated.
Line 32 says that the CEO should still work to maximize profits..isnt it inferrable that they think CEOs are obligated to do so?
Even when we consider the "even if" would that really change anything?

Thank you in advance!