Option D : 

In lines 11-12, the author introduces the main purpose of the passage, which is to examine the “different views on where ethics should apply when someone makes an economic decision.” The passage examines what historical figures Adam Smith, Aristotle, and John Stuart Mill believed about the relationship between ethics and economics.

Choices A, B, and C are incorrect because they identify certain points addressed in the passage (cost-benefit analysis, ethical economic behavior, and the role of the free market), but do not describe the passage’s main purpose.

Option D : 

In lines 4-5, the author suggests that people object to criticizing ethics in free markets because they believe free markets are inherently ethical, and therefore, the role of ethics in free markets is unnecessary to study. In the opinion of the critics, free markets are ethical because they allow individuals to make their own choices about which goods to purchase and which goods to sell.

Choices A and B are incorrect because they are not objections that criticize the ethics of free markets. Choice C is incorrect because the author does not present the opinion that free markets depend on the devalued currency.

Option A : 

In lines 4-5, the author states that some people believe that free markets are “already ethical” because they “allow for personal choice.” This statement provides evidence that some people believe criticizing the ethics of free markets is unnecessary because free markets permit individuals to make their own choices.

Choices B, C, and D are incorrect because they do not provide the best evidence of an objection to a critique of the ethics of free markets.

Option B : 

In lines 6-7, the author states that people “have accepted the ethical critique and embraced corporate social responsibility.” In this context, people “embrace,” or readily adopt corporate social responsibility by acting in a certain way.

Choices A, C, and D are incorrect because in this context “embraced” does not mean lovingly held, eagerly hugged, or reluctantly used.

Option C : 

The third and fourth paragraphs of the passage present Adam Smith’s and Aristotle’s different approaches to defining ethics in economics. The fifth paragraph offers a third approach to defining ethical economics, how “instead of rooting ethics in character or the consequences of actions, we can focus on our actions themselves. From this perspective some things are right, some wrong” (lines 45-48).

Choice A is incorrect because the fifth paragraph does not develop a counterargument. Choices B and D are incorrect because although “character” is briefly mentioned in the fifth paragraph, its relationship to ethics is examined in the fourth paragraph.

Option A : 

In lines 57-59, the author states that “Many moral dilemmas arise when these three versions pull in different directions but clashes are not inevitable.” In this context, the three different perspectives on ethical economics may “clash,” or conflict, with one another.

Choices B, C, and D are incorrect because in this context “clashes” do not mean mismatches, collisions, or brawls.

Option C : 

In lines 59-64, the author states, “Take fair trade coffee . . . for example: buying it might have good consequences, be virtuous, and also be the right way to act in a flawed market.” The author is suggesting that in the example of fair trade coffee, all three perspectives about ethical economics—Adam Smith’s belief in consequences dictating the action, Aristotle’s emphasis on character, and the third approach emphasizing the virtue of good actions—can be applied. These three approaches share “common ground” (line 64), as they all can be applied to the example of fair trade coffee without contradicting one another.

Choices A, B, and D are incorrect because they do not show how the three different approaches to ethical economics share common ground. Choice A simply states that there are “different views on ethics” in economics, choice B explains the third ethical economics approach, and choice D suggests that people “behave like a herd” when considering economics.

Option C : 

In lines 83-88, the author states that psychology can help “define ethics for us,” which can help explain why people “react in disgust at economic injustice, or accept a moral law as universal.”

Choices A and B are incorrect because they identify topics discussed in the final paragraph (human quirks and people’s reaction to economic injustice) but not their main idea. Choice D is incorrect because the final paragraph does not suggest that economists may be responsible for reforming the free market.

Option A : 

The data in the graph show that in Tanzania between the years 2000 and 2008, fair trade coffee profits were around $1.30 per pound, while profits of regular coffee were in the approximate range of 20–60 cents per pound.

Choices B, C, and D are incorrect because they are not supported by information in the graph.

Option B : 

The data in the graph indicate that between 2002 and 2004 the difference in per-pound profits between fair trade and regular coffee was about $1. At this time, fair-trade coffee was valued at around $1.30 per pound and regular coffee was valued at around 20 cents per pound. The graph also shows that regular coffee recorded the lowest profits between the years 2002 and 2004, while fair trade coffee remained relatively stable throughout the entire eight-year span (2000 to 2008).

Choices A, C, and D are incorrect because they do not indicate the greatest difference between per-pound profits for fair trade and regular coffee.