The Case in Point on Preventing Oil Spills stated that an economist who studied the costs and benefits of preventing oil spills in coastal waters and rivers concluded that:
A) the marginal cost of preventing oil spills was greater than the marginal benefit and the U.S.Coast Guard could not justify its excessive prevention efforts.
B) The marginal cost of preventing oil spills was less than the marginal benefit and that the U.S.Cost Guard could justify even greater efforts at preventing them.
C) that oil spills are so terrible and have such a pervasively destructive impact on the coastal waters and rivers that they should be prevented entirely-no oil spills should be tolerated.
D) both B and C were conclusions reached by the economist.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The economist concluded that the marginal cost of preventing oil spills was less than the marginal benefit, which means that the benefits of preventing oil spills outweigh the costs. This indicates that the U.S. Coast Guard could justify even greater efforts at preventing oil spills. Choice A is incorrect because it suggests that the marginal cost was greater than the marginal benefit, which contradicts the economist's conclusion. Choice C is incorrect because while the economist may have argued for the prevention of all oil spills, it is not explicitly stated in the case in point. Choice D is incorrect because while B is a conclusion reached by the economist, C is not explicitly stated.

The Case in Point on Preventing Oil Spills Stated That