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. The definition of a serious crime is stealing a money box or leaving a restaurant without paying.

Answer 1

According to this excerpt from Levitt and Dubnerâ' s Freakonomics, the definition of crime is subjective and depends on who commits the crime and what type is committed.

The correct answer is B (the second one).

What the author is explaining in this excerpt is that the worker that is failing to pay for a bagel, which means not paying for what he is taking and can be considered a minor crime, is very unlikely to leave a restaurant without paying because he or she will consider it an actual crime.

Although in both cases the worker's action is essentially the same (not paying for what he eats), one is considered not important and the other one is considered a crime.