Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
Bold face - criminals
This topic has expert replies
IMO B.ranell wrote:Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:12 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- GMAT Score:730
thanks for the question, boldface practise..!!
i AM weak at boldface's ....but i'll try...here goes
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
The second is not a claim ''is support'' of the conclusion, rather it is against it.B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
I feel this is correct.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
The first is not the main conclsuion; second statement is correct.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
First is not main conclusion; second is a prediction, but not on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
The first statement is correct; however, in the sceond statement, it is not of ''exceptional'' cases...they are the main gruops of the generalisation
i AM weak at boldface's ....but i'll try...here goes
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
The second is not a claim ''is support'' of the conclusion, rather it is against it.B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
I feel this is correct.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
The first is not the main conclsuion; second statement is correct.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
First is not main conclusion; second is a prediction, but not on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
The first statement is correct; however, in the sceond statement, it is not of ''exceptional'' cases...they are the main gruops of the generalisation
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:22 pm
- Location: Indy
- Thanked: 3 times
IMO B . OA plzranell wrote:Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
__________________________________
Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!
HENCE IMO B IS THE CORRECT ANSWERranell wrote:Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion. THIS IS WRONG COZ THE SECOND IS NOT A CLAIM THAT HAS BEEN ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE FIRST CONCLUSION.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument. THIS IS PERFECTLY CORRECT.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion. THE FIRST IS NOT THE MAIN CONCLUSION, THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF SOME LEGISLATORS.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion. AGAIN FIRST IS NOT A MAIL CONCLUSION AND THE SECOND IS NOT A PREDICTION.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.THE SECOND DOES NOT POINT OUTS A GROUP OF EXCEPTIONAL CASES.....
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:35 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:2 members
The Whole passage discusses "life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes"ranell wrote:Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
However,in option B it says the second is the main conclusion of the argument..Can Somebody help to resolve .
Pls let me know if my analysis is wrong.you are Open to criticize!!!
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
Proposed policy:ranell wrote:Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
Mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime.
Conclusion of some legislators:
Such a policy would reduce crime dramatically.
Conclusion of the passage:
Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect.
As shown above:
BF1 = the conclusion that the passage OPPOSES.
BF2 = the conclusion of the PASSAGE.
Only B matches:
The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
The correct answer is B.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3