Are you being deliberately obtuse?
1. There is enough food to go around
2. Determining with 100% accuracy if someone is really entitled to help is unnecessary
1. There is enough food to go around
2. Determining with 100% accuracy if someone is really entitled to help is unnecessary
The question is assuming the marginal case since it wasn't intended to be trivial. i.e. where the 'amount of food' is limited.
But if there is genuine confusion, since it wasn't spelt out, here's the rephrased question:
"How is this assessment made when food is limited?
This makes sense, thanks for actually writing an easy to follow explanation.
> If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help.
Can you explain how the second follows the first?