Thinking Skills Assessment: Entrance Exam Sample Questions
When serious accidents such as train and plane crashes occur there are demands to identify and punish those responsible. Companies found guilty of corporate killing (“corporate killing” means the company as a whole is held responsible for deaths) in these accidents could be given huge financial penalties. But the point of punishment should be to ensure that safety systems are excellent and safety procedures are carefully followed. Financial penalties for the company do not have a great impact on individuals within the company hence they do not make them feel a sharp sense of personal responsibility for safety. If the law allowed for jail sentences for the directors of these companies this would provide the incentive to ensure the best safety systems and procedures.

Which one of the following can be drawn as a conclusion from the above passage?
Correct!
C
The law should allow for jail sentences for directors of companies which are found guilty of corporate killing.
Explanation
The tasks requires the student to logically deduce a conclusion from the argument.  The argument is claiming that punishing companies will not solve safety problems; only by punishing people - the people in charge of the companies doing the corporate killing - will there be a reason for such people to ensure that safety is paramount.  C is the correct inference.

A is actually what the argument denies is effective.
B - the argument makes no mention of train drivers or pilots let alone absolve them of guilt; so, this will not follow.
D may be a tempting answer; but, the main point of this argument is not about making justice for victims but to ensure that safety is maximized (see line 4); hence D is a poor choice.
E  There are no statements about who is or who is not directly responsible for the safety systems nor any arguments about how not being directly responsible absolves the company directors of guilt.