Read the following excerpt from Levitt and Dubner’s Freakonomics. There is a tale, “The Ring of Gyges,” that Feldman sometimes tells his economist friends. It comes from Plato’s Republic. A student named Glaucon offered the story in response to a lesson by Socrates—who, like Adam Smith, argued that people are generally good even without enforcement. Glaucon, like Feldman’s economist friends, disagreed. He told of a shepherd named Gyges who stumbled upon a secret cavern with a corpse inside that wore a ring. When Gyges put on the ring, he found that it made him invisible. With no one able to monitor his behavior, Gyges proceeded to do woeful things—seduce the queen, murder the king, and so on. Glaucon’s story posed a moral question: could any man resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed? Glaucon seemed to think the answer was no. But Paul Feldman sides with Socrates and Adam Smith—for he knows the answer, at least 87 percent of the time, is yes. Feldman reaches the conclusion that most people are honest without receiving an incentive by making a claim about his individual experiences and looking for evidence. making a broad generalization about morality and looking for evidence. studying his individual experiences and arriving at a broad generalization. studying a counterclaim about morality and arriving at a broad generalization.

After reading the excerpt from "Freakonomics," we can say Feldman reaches the conclusion that most people are honest without receiving an incentive by:

C. Studying his individual experiences and arriving at a broad generalization.

At the end of the passage, the authors say that Feldman knows that "at least 87 percent of the time" people are honest. The reason why Feldman knows that is his own experience.

Learn more about "Freakonomics" and honesty here:

link

Feldman reaches the conclusion that most people are honest without receiving an incentive by

studying a counterclaim about morality and arriving at a broad generalization.

Explanation:

A researcher can reach a conclusion that most people are honest after studying a counterclaim about morality.  He can then arrive at a broad generalization.

A counterclaim is the opposite of an argument, or simply, the opposing argument.  A counterclaim research is one undertaken to establish that the opposite of a research situation prevails.  It is a claim made against a situation or an established position in order to rebut the claimed position.

In this instance, Glaucon had taken a position that no man could resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed or dictated.  For Feldman to contradict this claim, with a conclusion that 87% of the time, a man could resist the temptation of evil even if he knew his acts could not be witnessed or dictated because he had become invisible, it means that he had researched the counterclaim.