BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

LSAT Criminals and law Abiding PPL

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

LSAT Criminals and law Abiding PPL

by mundasingh123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:27 am
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
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:700

by prachich1987 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:59 am
IMO : A
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 857
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:36 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:15 members

by AIM GMAT » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:09 am
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.
Thanks & Regards,
AIM GMAT
Top
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

by fitzgerald23 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:24 am
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.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:30 am
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.
Which people are u referring to ?
in the portion quoted above;the bolded word
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
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

by fitzgerald23 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:50 am
mundasingh123 wrote:
fitzgerald23 wrote: Which people are u referring to ?
in the portion quoted above;the bolded word
The law abiding people mentioned in the CR passage:

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.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pm
Location: USA
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:5 members

by Target2009 » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:46 pm
My Guess : E
BTW ..is this question qualify for weakening the argument question type?
Regards
Abhishek
------------------------------
MasterGmat Student
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:01 am
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 Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:26 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by RACHVIK » Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:03 am
whats the OA?? IMO B
Rachvik
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:11 am
OA E
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:50 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:2 members

by Ravish » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:37 pm
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
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)

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/
Top
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 2:01 am

by Adinga1 » Mon May 13, 2013 2:11 am
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.
Top
User avatar
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

by David@VeritasPrep » Wed May 15, 2013 2:28 pm
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?
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 2:01 am

by Adinga1 » Thu May 16, 2013 9:58 am
Thanks David. Your explanation unravelled the precise area of my cloudiness. Thanks again.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1