LSAC CR Q 22

saurabh_1922@yahoo.co.in · Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: LSAC CR Q 22

22. To hold criminals responsible for their crimes
involves a failure to recognize that criminal actions,
like all actions, are ultimately products of the
environment that forged the agent’s character. It is
not criminals but people in the law-abiding majority
who by their actions do most to create and maintain
this environment. Therefore, it is law-abiding people
whose actions, and nothing else, make them alone
truly responsible for crime.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to
criticism on the grounds that
(A) it exploits an ambiguity in the term
“environment” by treating two different
meanings of the word as though they were
equivalent
(B) it fails to distinguish between actions that are
socially acceptable and actions that are socially
unacceptable
(C) the way it distinguishes criminals from crimes
implicitly denies that someone becomes a
criminal solely in virtue of having committed a
crime
(D) its conclusion is a generalization of statistical
evidence drawn from only a small minority of
the population
(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on
which an earlier part of the argument is based

Would anyone help me to get the answer.

RM · Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject:

Is it E. (Its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based)

Argument says that people by their actions create an enviornment that fosters criminals. However, conclusion states that action of people create criminals.

Therefore, the conclusion and premise are contradictory. Choice E.

harry_x1

The answer is E..

But I dont agree with the reasoning advanced by RM

The passage initailly states that all actions are products of environment so criminals cant be held reponsible....
he then states that rule abiding majority should be held responsible because they by their actions create the environment.....But how can u hold rule abiding majority reponsible because their actions are also a product of their environment....so conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on
which an earlier part of the argument is based

givemeanid · Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:41 pm Post subject:

Before the criminal commits the crime, he is also a part of law abiding citizens and hence, by the reasoning, creating the environment. When s/he commits a crime, the environment in part is created by the criminal himself. Thus, he is responsible. This is implicity stated and contradicted.

saurabh_1922@yahoo.co.in · Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:06 pm Post subject:

Thanks all!