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 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.

The correct answer is: The definition of crime is objective and does not depend on who commits the crime or what type is committed. Taken from the book “Freakonomics” by Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt (2005), the main idea of the paragraph presented above is to describe that a crime is a crime no matter who commit it or the level of the crime. In this case, Feldman argues that an office worker who eats a bagel without paying is committing a crime as well as not paying the bill when someone leaves the restaurant. Feldman argues that people may feel guilty about not paying the bill at the restaurant; however, they may think it is not a crime not paying for a bagel, when in fact crime is objective and both actions should be punished.

The definition of crime is objective and does not depend on who commits the crime and what type is committed is the answer that best summarizes the main idea of the excerpt.

Feldman's analysis shows that, although the subject involved may draw a distinction between a mischief and a crime, there is ultimately no such distinction. In this case, although the scope of the action may seem limited to a small amount of money, eating or drinking something without paying for it is, in fact, a crime.

qewertyi

explanation:

qawsedrfghjkl;

emerson essentially believes that traveling is overrated. he supports this perspective through an initial focus on "the idea" of places like italy, england, and egypt, and the fascination of "educated americans" with them. he argues that those places only took on the grand, majestic ideas that they represent because "they who made england, italy, or greece venerable in the imagination did so by sticking fast where they were, like an axis of the earth." yes, those places are grand, but only because they so clearly represent the places that they are. the art and culture of italy, england, and egypt is authentic, and therefore significant.

plz mark brainliest