Final answer:
It is true that not all controls should be automatically implemented without assessing their costs and benefits. Cost/benefit analysis is a critical decision-making tool used to determine whether the benefits of a control will outweigh its costs. Additionally, the principle applies to various sectors like environmental regulation, where some control costs may not be justified by their benefits.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that 'Not all possible controls should be implemented; rather, one must assess a control's cost and benefits before implementation' is true. This is because in many scenarios, particularly in a business or regulatory context, the implementation of controls or policies comes at a cost. Decision-makers must conduct a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the anticipated benefits of implementing a control justify the associated costs. Employing a cost/benefit analysis helps in comparing what sacrifices need to be made against the gains that can be expected. Typically, you would list the costs on one side, such as financial expenditures, time, and other resources, while on the other side, you would list the benefits, like revenue increases, time savings, or other improvements.
Furthermore, the principle of not over-regulating or over-controlling is supported by the evidence in environmental regulation. It has been noted that for certain contaminants, the benefits of air pollution control outweigh the costs significantly, while for others, the cost might be comparable to or even exceed the benefits. In economics generally, the guiding principle is to move forward with actions when the economic benefits exceed the economic costs. This does not always mean eliminating an activity completely, like corn farming or pollution, but adjusting the level of the activity to the point where the benefits of further reductions no longer outweigh the costs.