In this excerpt, the authors present a comparison between various criminals. An argument in favor of reporting crime. A contrast between different types of crime. An argument against embezzlement.

This question is missing the excerpt. I was able to find it online. It is the following:

Read the following excerpt from Levitt and Dubner's "Freakonomics":

A key fact of white-collar crime is that we hear about only the very slim fraction of people who are caught cheating. Most embezzlers lead quiet and theoretically happy lives; employees who steal company property are rarely detected. With street crime, meanwhile, that is not the case. A mugging or a burglary or a murder is usually tallied whether or not the criminal is caught. A street crime has a victim, who typically reports the crime to the police, who generate data, which in turn generate thousands of academic papers by criminologists, sociologists, and economists. But white-collar crime presents no obvious victim.

In the excerpt, the authors present:

C. A contrast between different types of crime.

Explanation:

Levitt and Dubner, in the excerpt above, are contrasting two types of crime. To see that, we need to keep in mind that a comparison and a contrast are different. A comparison aims to find similarities, while a contrast aims to find differences. We clearly have a contrast here, since the authors present the dissimilarities, that is, the differences between white-collar crime and street crime.

According to the excerpt, white-collar crime is rarely noticed by statistical papers. Only a small percentage of people is caught. On the other hand, street crime makes the statistics quite easily. Even when no one is caught, the crime itself is reported anyway.

i need with the same thing