Read the passage depicting a systemic problem below.

Solution

Analysis: The premise outlines a severe institutional crisis where a central market authority deliberately manipulated a public risk standard for corporate profit, destroying public confidence and harming individual retail investors. A valid course of action must enforce strict deterrence or structurally prevent a recurrence. Course of Action 1 follows logically. The passage explicitly details deliberate collusion and systematic distortion of financial signals by senior figures at the expense of ordinary pension holders. Imposing severe monetary penalties on the enterprise and pursuing criminal charges against the guilty executives serves as an essential punitive measure and creates a powerful legal deterrent against high-level corporate fraud. Thus, 1 is a valid course of action. Course of Action 2 does NOT follow. The text establishes that the agency's internal leadership deliberately chose to manipulate numbers for profit while hiding behind the excuse of "standard practices." Relying on self-policing or voluntary compliance for an industry already engaging in systemic bad faith manipulation is completely illogical and would directly perpetuate the risk of future consumer exploitation. Protecting "market agility" cannot justify ignoring active institutional malpractice. Thus, 2 is incorrect. Course of Action 3 follows logically. Because the current system allowed corporate agencies to secretly collude with investment banks, creating a completely independent, conflict-free international oversight body to verify these credit models is a highly rational, preventative solution. Forcing transparency ensures that market signals remain accurate and works directly to rebuild shattered public trust. Thus, 3 is a valid course of action.