Critical Reasoning

David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is C.

My favorite post on this one is from UWHusky - who said everything that I am about to say below - except in like 10 words! "Negate this assumption and the whole system is rendered pointless, other than for novelty purpose."

Okay here is the "official" explanation:

This stimulus has a two-part conclusion: first, that the program will save the state millions of dollars and, second, that there will not be an increase in the crime rate. If this question required you to guarantee the conclusion, you would need an answer choice that addresses both sides and made these outcomes inevitable. However, this is an assumption question, so you are focusing on the answer choice that is required by the conclusion, but not necessarily enough to guarantee the conclusion.

You can evaluate the answers to assumption questions by eliminating those that are off-topic and then negate the remaining answer choice to see if the absence of the answer choice undermines the argument's conclusion.

A) This answer is on topic so negate: The negation is that judges will not give "equal weight" to the cost and the deterrent effect of each punishment. The argument does not require that specifically equal weight is given, of course it is important that some weight be given to cost and some to deterrence but this need not be equal for the conclusion to work.

B) The negation of this answer is that "not all" types of punishment have the same deterrent effect on crime. This argument does not require this, for example, if the less expensive punishments were more effective that would not undermine the conclusion, it would actually enhance the conclusion. Don't be tricked into thinking that this answer choice means that less expensive punishments can still be effective, this answer goes beyond that and says that all punishments have the SAME deterrent effect. This is not required.

C) The negation is that the state DOES have laws requiring specific punishments for each crime. It is clear that having a specific punishment for each crime does not support the idea that judges can hand down less expensive sentences. In fact, if this answer choice is taken away, meaning that the punishment for each crime is mandatory, then what good is giving the judge any information on sentences?

D) This answer choice would very much strengthen the idea that by using punishments such as probation judges could save the taxpayers' money without increasing the crime rate. However, this is an assumption question and the argument does not require that less expensive punishments be MORE effective - equally effective would certainly work!

E) I originally wrote this answer to say that the voters are "at least somewhat supportive" of the use of this computer program. That was too good of a choice because if the voters give no support to the program then they may elected leaders who get rid of it. C would still have been a better choice, but I changed this answer to say that the voters are "very supportive." It is not necessary that the voters be very supportive - it would be help if they do not take to the streets to protest the use of the program but they do not need to be "very supportive."


Nice work on that one. Hope that explanation satisfies!