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 andmaintain
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
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
LSAT Criminals and law Abiding PPL
This topic has expert replies
-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
-
prachich1987
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
- Thanked: 20 times
- Followed by:10 members
- GMAT Score:700
-
AIM GMAT
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 857
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:36 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:15 members
IMO E .
a] There are no two diff meaning & no ambiguity .
b] Out of scope , noone is talking about social actions .
c] Too far off discussion , OOS , when does it distinguishes ?
d] No statistical evidence used here .
e] Left out with E , its pretty complicated to explain that but i will try , firstly arg. is saying that environment is culprit then it does some analysis and says law abiding ppl's actions are responsible.
a] There are no two diff meaning & no ambiguity .
b] Out of scope , noone is talking about social actions .
c] Too far off discussion , OOS , when does it distinguishes ?
d] No statistical evidence used here .
e] Left out with E , its pretty complicated to explain that but i will try , firstly arg. is saying that environment is culprit then it does some analysis and says law abiding ppl's actions are responsible.
Thanks & Regards,
AIM GMAT
AIM GMAT
-
fitzgerald23
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
- Thanked: 62 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMAT Score:750
Thats a very hard question best determined by POE.
1. Criminals should not be held responsible for their crimes
2. All crimes and actions are a product of the environment
3. Non criminals create the environment
4. Non criminals are alone responsible for the crime
A. Incorrect. They never use two different meanings for the word environment
B. Incorrect. The premise has nothing to do with acceptable or unacceptable behavior. He acknowledges that crimes are committed. The authors concern is who is really to blame.
C. Incorrect. We dont care why someone becomes a criminal and he really isnt distinguishing criminal from crime. He is distinguishing cause.
D. Incorrect. There is no evidence presented such that we know the sample size. It could be very large for all we know or there could be no evidence at all.
E. Correct. The basic principle is point 2. All actions are a product of the environment as are crimes. How can people solely be responsible for crimes caused by their actions if actions are a product of the environment? Under the authors basic premise the people cant be responsible the environment has to be.
1. Criminals should not be held responsible for their crimes
2. All crimes and actions are a product of the environment
3. Non criminals create the environment
4. Non criminals are alone responsible for the crime
A. Incorrect. They never use two different meanings for the word environment
B. Incorrect. The premise has nothing to do with acceptable or unacceptable behavior. He acknowledges that crimes are committed. The authors concern is who is really to blame.
C. Incorrect. We dont care why someone becomes a criminal and he really isnt distinguishing criminal from crime. He is distinguishing cause.
D. Incorrect. There is no evidence presented such that we know the sample size. It could be very large for all we know or there could be no evidence at all.
E. Correct. The basic principle is point 2. All actions are a product of the environment as are crimes. How can people solely be responsible for crimes caused by their actions if actions are a product of the environment? Under the authors basic premise the people cant be responsible the environment has to be.
-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Which people are u referring to ?fitzgerald23 wrote:Thats a very hard question best determined by POE.
D. Incorrect. There is no evidence presented such that we know the sample size. It could be very large for all we know or there could be no evidence at all.
E. Correct. The basic principle is point 2. All actions are a product of the environment as are crimes. How can people solely be responsible for crimes caused by their actions if actions are a product of the environment? Under the authors basic premise the people cant be responsible the environment has to be.
in the portion quoted above;the bolded word
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
-
fitzgerald23
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
- Thanked: 62 times
- Followed by:5 members
- GMAT Score:750
mundasingh123 wrote:The law abiding people mentioned in the CR passage:fitzgerald23 wrote: Which people are u referring to ?
in the portion quoted above;the bolded word
It is
not criminals but people in the law-abiding majority
who by their actions do most to create andmaintain
this environment. Therefore, it is law-abiding people
whose actions, and nothing else, make them alone
truly responsible for crime.
-
Target2009
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:5 members
My Guess : E
BTW ..is this question qualify for weakening the argument question type?
BTW ..is this question qualify for weakening the argument question type?
Regards
Abhishek
------------------------------
MasterGmat Student
Abhishek
------------------------------
MasterGmat Student
-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Soorry for keeping away from this thread since i was the one who started it .
I chose B
B says (B) it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and actions that are socially unacceptable
The stimulus says 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 stimulus talks about actions of both the so called criminals and the law abiding citizens. But the law abiding citizens dont get branded as citizens as their actions fall within the definition of what is socially acceptable.The criminal fall with the law because their actions are not socially acceptable . But the Stimulus does not differentiate between the actions of the criminals and the law abiding citizens .It does not make clear why is that the actions of the criminals make them fall out with the Law and the actions of the Law abiding citizens dont put them at odds with the Law
I chose B
B says (B) it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and actions that are socially unacceptable
The stimulus says 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 stimulus talks about actions of both the so called criminals and the law abiding citizens. But the law abiding citizens dont get branded as citizens as their actions fall within the definition of what is socially acceptable.The criminal fall with the law because their actions are not socially acceptable . But the Stimulus does not differentiate between the actions of the criminals and the law abiding citizens .It does not make clear why is that the actions of the criminals make them fall out with the Law and the actions of the Law abiding citizens dont put them at odds with the Law
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
-
Ravish
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:50 pm
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:2 members
Fitzgerald gave a good explanation so i'l leave out 3 of the answer choices and focus on the correct answer (E) and the one that you chose (B)mundasingh123 wrote: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 andmaintain
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
B states that it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and those that are socially unacceptable. However, the argument DOES distinguish between the two as it specifically calls the criminals criminals and other people as Law Abiding citizens - twice. Once as the law abiding majority and then again as law abiding people.
In doing so, the argument clearly distinguishes between the two. It never indicates that the actions of the law abiding people are wrong; instead, it states that their actions, which are acceptable by law (aka socially acceptable), are creating an environment that fosters this type of criminal behavior.
I know real life examples are not to be bought into GMAT reasoning but let me give an example to highlight how the premise is broken down:
Man loses job, house and ends up broke; he then goes to the bank for a loan. However, bank representative turns down loan application due to lack of collateral on part of man (socially acceptable action). Man has family to feed but no other means to do so other than get money through illegal means. Hence man resorts to a life of crime.
Looking at E
'its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based'
Most certainly correct. The argument begins by saying to hold criminals responsible for their crimes requires one to forget the fact that criminals are a product of the environment created by the actions of law abiding citizens. However, the argument concludes by saying that the law abiding citizens AND NOTHING ELSE are responsible for the crime - a direct contradiction to the principle of forgetting that the criminals were a product of the environment created by law abiding citizens.
Organizer 'The GMAT and MBA bay area meetup group'
Looking for a study group in the bay area? Join us at https://www.meetup.com/gmat-32/
Looking for a study group in the bay area? Join us at https://www.meetup.com/gmat-32/
If E is the OA I don't fully see how because I don't see a contradiction. If the law abiding people are to blame, aren't they still to blame, or better yet aren't they still the causer if their actions cause the environmental to have this effect? This is the reason I was straying from E.
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
This is indeed an LSAT question and is not just like any GMAT question.
This is what is called a flawed reasoning question. The reason that it is not exactly like anything on the GMAT is because of the answer choices. These are standard LSAT answer choices.
choice A is ambiguous word usage - a standard on the LSAT but rare on the GMAT. Choice D is called "overgeneralization" - another standard on the LSAT.
The answer is choice E. The implicit principle is "all actions, are ultimately products of the
environment that forged the agent's character" this is what is offered as evidence for criminals not being responsible for their crimes.
But the argument goes on to say that law-abiding people are responsible for crime since they create the environment. Yet this contradicts the principle that "all actions are products of the environment..."
So either law-abiding people are not to blame either, or else the principle is wrong.
Does that help?
This is what is called a flawed reasoning question. The reason that it is not exactly like anything on the GMAT is because of the answer choices. These are standard LSAT answer choices.
choice A is ambiguous word usage - a standard on the LSAT but rare on the GMAT. Choice D is called "overgeneralization" - another standard on the LSAT.
The answer is choice E. The implicit principle is "all actions, are ultimately products of the
environment that forged the agent's character" this is what is offered as evidence for criminals not being responsible for their crimes.
But the argument goes on to say that law-abiding people are responsible for crime since they create the environment. Yet this contradicts the principle that "all actions are products of the environment..."
So either law-abiding people are not to blame either, or else the principle is wrong.
Does that help?
