Critical Reasoning

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

E it is.. the conclusion contradicts with the principle "all actions" in the stimuli.

B,C,D are irrelevant.

A) sounded compelling but another read convinced me that there are no different meanings derived for environment.

(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on
which an earlier part of the argument is based
This seems alright.

Earlier argument: To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to recognize.

Implicit principle for earlier argument: Criminal actions are the result of the environment.

Conclusion: Law abiding citizens are responsible for the crime.

Just before the conclusion didn't we establish that it's the environment and not environment's people? Hence, the correct answer is E.

Please post the OA soon!

IMO E.

I used PoE.I was struck with A & E.After keen observation A is no that convincing.

IMO E as well.

OA is E
I took gmat today, scored 730 (51Q, 37V).

enniguy wrote:B,C,D are irrelevant.

A) sounded compelling but another read convinced me that there are no different meanings derived for environment.

(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on
which an earlier part of the argument is based
This seems alright.

Earlier argument: To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to recognize.

Implicit principle for earlier argument: Criminal actions are the result of the environment.

Conclusion: Law abiding citizens are responsible for the crime.

Just before the conclusion didn't we establish that it's the environment and not environment's people? Hence, the correct answer is E.

Please post the OA soon!

The first part, like you said , established that the environment is responsible for the crime and not the criminals. However, why did you stop there? The rest of the first part says that peopls' actions maintain this environment ! SO, NO contradiction.

Please help with this one

Really need help understand what is wrong with my logic..

The first part, like you said , established that the environment is responsible for the crime and not the criminals. However, why did you stop there? The rest of the first part says that peopls' actions maintain this environment ! SO, NO contradiction.

Please help with this one

I'd say E but I'm afraid more because of my intuition than any logic.