Read the passage depicting a systemic problem below.

Solution

Analysis: The premise outlines a critical crisis where systemic corporate data fraud has undermined investor confidence, creating an immediate risk of massive capital flight from the technology market. To resolve this, a valid course of action must directly correct the regulatory oversight loopholes or restore market integrity. Course of Action 1 follows logically. The core problem stems from listed companies engaging in unauthorized data exploitation. Forcing these listed technology firms to comply with stricter disclosure norms and undergo independent external audits directly addresses the root cause of the crisis, adding transparency and re-establishing trust for global investors. Thus, 1 is an apt response. Course of Action 2 is inappropriate. Telling consumers to completely abandon digital commerce and revert to archaic, paper-based physical banking does absolutely nothing to fix or penalize corporate technology fraud. Instead, intentionally dismantling the digital consumer base would severely damage the domestic tech ecosystem, accelerating the very collapse that analysts are warning about. Thus, 2 is counterproductive and does not follow. Course of Action 3 follows logically. Because complex, high-tech data corporate fraud is frequently obscured inside deep internal networks, creating a safe whistleblower protection framework with financial incentives encourages internal employees to expose wrongdoing early. This acts as a powerful preventative tool and shows international markets that the regulatory landscape is serious about enforcing compliance. Thus, 3 is an apt response. Since Courses of Action 1 and 3 provide direct, structural, and rational remedies to address the governance failure and safeguard market confidence, C is the correct answer choice.