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.

there is no poster. if you add a poster then we can answer.

cause they were to dumb to get their college education to become a real   : )