Assertion–Reason (Two Reasons):\nAssertion (A): White-collar crimes are increasing rapidly.\nReason (R1): People in the private sector are under great stress to earn good money.\nReason (R2): The law is slack on white-collar crimes.

Introduction / Context:
White-collar crimes (fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, corporate bribery) can be influenced by both individual incentives/pressures and institutional deterrence. We ask whether each reason could contribute to a rise in such crimes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• (A) Observes an increase in white-collar crimes.
• (R1) Highlights financial/competitive stress as motive pressure.
• (R2) Points to weak enforcement or lenient penalties as enabling factors.

Concept / Approach:
Crime incidence generally responds to motive and opportunity (or weak deterrence). If both pressure (R1) and lax enforcement (R2) exist, the expected risk–reward calculus may tilt toward more violations.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Empirical patterns often show spikes where regulation or enforcement lags innovation/complexity.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
(a) or (b) exclude a relevant co-driver; (d) denies plausible mechanisms; (e) hedges without need.

Common Pitfalls:
Attributing complex outcomes to a single cause; ignoring deterrence effects.

Final Answer:
Option C: Both (R1) and (R2) are reasons.