when should Daniel Andrews RESIGN, page-14

"Evidently an enormous "loophole" just begging to be exploited. So, why not?"
These two sentences enable a reader to comprehend clearly the intent of the writer.

The writer calls the legislation an 'enormous "loophole" just begging to be exploited' followed by the question "So, why not?" assumes that the subject of the second sentence is already very clearly identified as a loophole begging to be exploited and asks the question as to why anyone should be amazed that it is indeed being exploited. If this is objectionable, the law required to be changed. Sorry, but there is at least one poster on this thread who finds clear English very difficult to comprehend, judging by his/her silly response.

So why not exploit the loophole? That is clearly the entire meaning.
So why close the loophole? I have made no reference to closing the loophole. So, can't be my meaning.
So why not make him pay it back? I have made no reference to asking for it to be paid back. So, can't be my meaning.
So why not you go school to learn read write? Just a piece of nonsense.