I think the answer is E.
Quote:
A. Whether the bureau has taken explicit permission from the government to shutdown Wal-Mart Stores.
Even if it has, it doesn't mean that bureau's decision was FAIR. They got the permission to close all Wal-Mart Stores, but they didn't have to do it.
Quote:
B. Whether the other cases against Wal-Mart involved mislabeling of pork or mislabeling of other meat.
Even if the other cases didn't involve mislabeling of pork/other meat, it doesn't mean that the other stores didn't break the rules in some other way and that bureau's intervention wasn't fair.
Quote:
C .Whether mislabeling food products is a criminal felony punishable by law.
If it's not a criminal felony, it doesn't mean that these activities aren't classified as misdemeanour and still be punishable by law. Thus, the bureau had basis for closing the stores and it doesn't necessarily mean that its decision was unfair.
Quote:
D. Whether all the Wal-Mart stores in the city were selling mislabeled pork.
It's more tricky, but kind of similar to answer B. Some Wal-Mart stores could sell mislabeled pork and all the other could e.g. sell expired meat, making it fair to close all Wal-Mart stores.
Quote:
E. Whether other retailers with similar history of mislabeled products have been handed similar punishments.
Knowing this can help us in assessing FAIRNESS of bureau's decision. If some other retailer was also involved in such bad practices and his stores weren't closed (or not all of them were closed), it'd be unfair to shut down all Wal-Mart stores. But if they were closed, it'd be justified to do the same in Wal-Mart case.
In my opinion, answer E is the best option.