Question

Read the following excerpt from Levitt and Dubner’s Freakonomics.

In the beginning, Feldman left behind an open basket for the cash, but too often the money vanished. Then he tried a coffee can with a money slot in its plastic lid, which also proved too tempting. In the end, he resorted to making small plywood boxes with a slot cut into the top. The wooden box has worked well. Each year he drops off about seven thousand boxes and loses, on average, just one to theft. This is an intriguing statistic: the same people who routinely steal more than 10 percent of his bagels almost never stoop to stealing his money box—a tribute to the nuanced social calculus of theft. From Feldman’s perspective, an office worker who eats a bagel without paying is committing a crime; the office worker probably doesn’t think so. This distinction probably has less to do with the admittedly small amount of money involved (Feldman’s bagels cost one dollar each, cream cheese included) than with the context of the “crime.” The same office worker who fails to pay for his bagel might also help himself to a long slurp of soda while filling a glass in a self-serve restaurant, but he is very unlikely to leave the restaurant without paying.

Which of the following best summarizes the main idea of this paragraph?
The definition of crime is objective and does not depend on who commits the crime or what type is committed.
The definition of crime is subjective and depends on who commits the crime and what type is committed.
The definition of a minor crime is stealing a bagel or leaving a restaurant without paying.

Answer 1

b

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer 2

B) The definition of crime is subjective and depends on who commits the crime and what type is committed.

Step-by-step explanation:

The main point of the passage is to prove that a person who commits crime, does not think so about his/her action.

In the first part (open basket, coffee can and wooden money boxes), he proves that when situation is tempting or easy for stealing people may commit this crime, but when it is difficult to steal, people don't commit this crime.

In next part he makes a comparison of above situation with an office worker who does not pay for a bagel. He knows that there is some difference in stealing intentionally and not paying for bagel, but still he concludes that, an office worker who does not pay one dollar, is very unlikely to leave the office without paying if his bill is more than one dollar.

From both these situations, he concludes that crime is subjective and depends on situation i.e. who committed and what type of crime it is.

Option A (first) is incorrect as all the emphasis on the paragraph lies on proving subjectivity of crime.

Option C (third) is not a definition at all.