Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
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?
Solution
Understanding the Passage
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| "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." |
|
| (Boldface 1) "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." |
|
| (Boldface 2) "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." |
|
Overall Structure
The criminologist is rejecting the legislators' proposed policy by showing it will have the opposite effect of what they intend. The argument flows from presenting others' view → presenting their reasoning → countering with key facts → concluding the policy will backfire.
Main Conclusion: The three-strikes policy would increase rather than decrease crime because it would fill prisons with older, less active criminals instead of younger, more dangerous ones.
Boldface Segments
- Boldface 1: such a policy would reduce crime dramatically
- Boldface 2: Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect
Boldface Understanding
Boldface 1:
- Function: Provides the reasoning/justification for the legislators' three-strikes policy proposal
- Direction: Opposite direction - this opposes the author's ultimate position (even though it's just reporting what legislators believe)
Boldface 2:
- Function: States the criminologist's main conclusion that directly contradicts the legislators' expected outcome
- Direction: Same direction - this supports and IS the author's ultimate position
Structural Classification
Boldface 1:
- Structural Role: Supporting reason for a view that the author opposes
- Predicted Answer Patterns: "reason for a view that the argument opposes" or "support for a position the author rejects"
Boldface 2:
- Structural Role: Main conclusion of the author's argument
- Predicted Answer Patterns: "the argument's main conclusion" or "the author's primary claim"
Answer Choices Explained
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 first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute' - ✓ CORRECT - The first boldface represents the legislators' conclusion that the policy will reduce crime dramatically, which the criminologist's entire argument aims to disprove
- 'the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface actually contradicts the legislators' conclusion by saying the policy will have 'exactly the opposite of the desired effect'
B
The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
- 'The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute' - ✓ CORRECT - The criminologist is challenging the legislators' conclusion that the three-strikes policy will dramatically reduce crime
- 'the second is the main conclusion of the argument' - ✓ CORRECT - The second boldface presents the criminologist's primary claim that the policy will backfire and increase rather than decrease crime
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 the main conclusion of the argument' - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface represents the legislators' view, not the criminologist's conclusion. The criminologist disagrees with this claim
- 'the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface is the criminologist's own conclusion, not an objection raised by others
D
The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
- 'The first is the main conclusion of the argument' - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface is the legislators' position that the criminologist opposes, not the criminologist's own conclusion
- 'the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface contradicts the first rather than building upon it; it's based on the criminologist's counter-reasoning, not the legislators' reasoning
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 is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration' - ✓ CORRECT - The first boldface does make a general claim about the policy's crime-reducing effects
- 'the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface doesn't identify exceptions to the first statement; instead, it presents a completely opposite conclusion about the policy's overall effect
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More