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

Critical Reasoning

Boldface

MEDIUM

...

Notes

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?

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; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

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; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.

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.

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."	What it says: Certain lawmakers want a "three strikes" policy - if someone commits three serious crimes, they get life in prison with no possibility of release. Visualization: Criminal history timeline: Crime 1 → Prison sentence → Crime 2 → Prison sentence → Crime 3 → Life imprisonment (no release) What it does: Introduces the position that the criminologist will respond to Source: Legislators' view
(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 it says: The lawmakers believe this three-strikes rule will significantly cut crime rates because repeat offenders will be locked up forever, preventing them from committing more crimes. Visualization: Before policy: 100 repeat offenders on streets committing 500 crimes/year → After policy: 0 repeat offenders on streets committing 0 crimes/year = Dramatic crime reduction What it does: Provides the reasoning behind the legislators' position Source: Legislators' view
"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."	What it says: The criminologist points out a flaw: older criminals who have already been to prison twice don't typically commit many more crimes after that. Visualization: Typical older repeat offender (age 45+): Already served 2 sentences → Usually commits only 1 more crime in remaining years vs. Younger criminal (age 20): Commits 8-10 crimes over next decade What it does: Presents the key counterargument that undermines the legislators' reasoning Source: Criminologist's (author's) view
(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."	What it says: The criminologist concludes that the three-strikes policy will actually increase crime because prisons will be full of older, less active criminals, leaving no room for younger, more dangerous criminals who commit most crimes. Visualization: Prison capacity scenario: 10,000 total prison beds → 8,000 beds occupied by older repeat offenders → Only 2,000 beds left for young criminals who commit 75% of all serious crimes → More young criminals on streets = Higher crime rates What it does: States the main conclusion - that the policy will backfire Source: Criminologist's (author's) view

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

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'

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

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

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

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

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...