- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#23668
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
The argument concludes that holding criminals responsible for their crimes is equivalent to failing to recognize that for all people actions are the product of an environment that forged the agent's character. The argument asserts that the law-abiding majority forges the environment, so it is the law-abiding people who are responsible for crime.
The reasoning in the argument is absurd, since the argument is self-contradictory. If people are the product of their environment, then the law-abiding majority is every bit as much such a product as is the criminal element. At that point, if the criminal element is not responsible by reason of environment, why should the law-abiding element be? The argument is based on contradictory assumptions.
Since you are asked to describe the flaw, you should focus on the argument's absurd, contradictory nature.
Answer choice (A): The argument does not exploit any ambiguity in the term "environment," so this choice is wrong. "Environment" means "surroundings" and the term was very clearly used to mean that.
Answer choice (B): The argument very generally does distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable actions in that it acknowledges the existence of criminal and law-abiding persons, so this choice is wrong.
Answer choice (C): Since the argument did not concern the methods by which one becomes a criminal, but instead where the blame lies for those methods, this choice is not related to the main line of reasoning, and is incorrect. Flaw responses not related to the main line of reasoning are in general incorrect, even if you think the flaw may have existed. Furthermore, this choice is actually false, as the stimulus does no such thing.
Answer choice (D): Since the stimulus concerns only an abstracted discussion of "criminals" and "law-abiding majority" without any clear specifics or comparisons to a general population, you should not assume that an overgeneralization has occurred. This choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Refusing to blame criminals for their actions on the basis that all actions stem from environment, and then asserting blame onto the law-abiding, even though the discussion of criminals would more consistently commit the stimulus to the proposition that no-one can be blamed, is an internal contradiction.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
The argument concludes that holding criminals responsible for their crimes is equivalent to failing to recognize that for all people actions are the product of an environment that forged the agent's character. The argument asserts that the law-abiding majority forges the environment, so it is the law-abiding people who are responsible for crime.
The reasoning in the argument is absurd, since the argument is self-contradictory. If people are the product of their environment, then the law-abiding majority is every bit as much such a product as is the criminal element. At that point, if the criminal element is not responsible by reason of environment, why should the law-abiding element be? The argument is based on contradictory assumptions.
Since you are asked to describe the flaw, you should focus on the argument's absurd, contradictory nature.
Answer choice (A): The argument does not exploit any ambiguity in the term "environment," so this choice is wrong. "Environment" means "surroundings" and the term was very clearly used to mean that.
Answer choice (B): The argument very generally does distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable actions in that it acknowledges the existence of criminal and law-abiding persons, so this choice is wrong.
Answer choice (C): Since the argument did not concern the methods by which one becomes a criminal, but instead where the blame lies for those methods, this choice is not related to the main line of reasoning, and is incorrect. Flaw responses not related to the main line of reasoning are in general incorrect, even if you think the flaw may have existed. Furthermore, this choice is actually false, as the stimulus does no such thing.
Answer choice (D): Since the stimulus concerns only an abstracted discussion of "criminals" and "law-abiding majority" without any clear specifics or comparisons to a general population, you should not assume that an overgeneralization has occurred. This choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Refusing to blame criminals for their actions on the basis that all actions stem from environment, and then asserting blame onto the law-abiding, even though the discussion of criminals would more consistently commit the stimulus to the proposition that no-one can be blamed, is an internal contradiction.
