Summarize Argument
The author concludes that certain lawmakers think that theft and bribery are equally harmful. She supports this by saying that they mandate identical penalties for both.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the lawmakers set penalties based on how harmful they believe a crime is. In other words, she assumes that a crime’s penalty accurately reflects the harm that the lawmakers think it causes.
A
In general, lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm they believe to result from those crimes.
If lawmakers generally mandate penalties that correspond to the harm that they think results from a crime, then it’s likely the lawmakers in these jurisdictions consider theft and bribery equally harmful, since the penalties for both are the same.
B
In most cases, lawmakers assess the level of harm resulting from an act in determining whether to make that act illegal.
The argument addresses how lawmakers set penalties for crimes, not how they decide if an act is illegal. Instead of (B), we need to know whether lawmakers assess the level of harm resulting from an act in determining the penalty for that act.
C
Often, in response to the unusually great harm resulting from a particular instance of a crime, lawmakers will mandate an increased penalty for that crime.
This suggests that a very harmful case of theft or bribery would lead lawmakers to increase the penalty. But the author is focusing on the harm of theft and bribery overall, not just extreme cases.
D
In most cases, a victim of theft is harmed no more than a victim of bribery is harmed.
The author only discusses how much harm lawmakers think bribery and theft cause; it doesn’t matter how much they actually cause. Even if they cause equal harm, this doesn’t help to determine whether lawmakers mandate penalties based on how much harm they think a crime causes.
E
If lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm resulting from those crimes, crime in those lawmakers’ jurisdictions will be effectively deterred.
The author doesn’t mention anything about crime being effectively deterred. Instead, we need to know whether lawmakers actually “mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm resulting from those crimes” in the first place.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people are wrong to say that we should learn the lessons of history. This is because the lessons are difficult to discern, and it’s not certain they could ever be applied even if we discovered them.
Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is the position that the author’s argument is disputing. Even trying to learn the lessons of history, the author argues, is ultimately a waste of time.
A
It sets out a problem the argument as a whole is designed to resolve.
The argument isn’t trying to resolve a problem. It’s disputing the view—that we should learn the lessons of history—expressed in the referenced text.
B
It is compatible with accepting the argument’s conclusion and with denying it.
The author concludes that discovering the lessons of history is a fruitless task. The referenced text meanwhile states that we should try to discover them, which contradicts the conclusion.
C
It is a position that the argument simply takes for granted is false.
The author doesn’t take for granted that we shouldn’t learn the lessons of history. Instead, she argues it’s a pointless endeavor to undertake.
D
It expresses the position the argument as a whole is directed toward discrediting.
The referenced text says that we should learn the lessons of history. The author says we shouldn’t, since the lessons of history are difficult to discover and of little practical value. Thus, the author attempts to discredit the position expressed in the referenced text.
E
It is an assumption that is required in order to establish the argument’s conclusion.
The author doesn’t assume that we should learn the lessons of history. Instead, she argues against this position.
Summarize Argument
Sigerson proposed an ethical guideline that prevents politicians from accepting campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. The author concludes that this proposal is dishonest. This is based on the fact that Sigerson has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career in city politics.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The fact that Sigerson accepted contributions in the past doesn’t indicate that he believes his proposal shouldn’t apply to him or that his past acceptance of contributions is ethically acceptable. So there’s no basis to call the proposal “dishonest.” Sigerson may have taken advantage of the lack of a rule against accepting such contributions and now wants to ban those contributions for everyone going forward.
A
confuses a sufficient condition for adopting ethical guidelines for politicians with a necessary condition for adopting such guidelines
The argument isn’t based on conditional logic, so there’s no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
B
rejects a proposal on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it
The author doesn’t reject the proposal; she simply calls it dishonest. Also, the basis of the conclusion isn’t that there’s been an inadequate argument for the proposal. The basis is Sigerson’s past acceptance of contributions.
C
fails to adequately address the possibility that other city politicians would resist Sigerson’s proposal
Whether other politicians would resist the proposal is irrelevant, because the argument doesn’t concern the likelihood that the proposal will pass.
D
rejects a proposal on the grounds that the person offering it is unfamiliar with the issues it raises
The basis of the author’s conclusion isn’t that Sigerson is unfamiliar with the issues raised in the proposal. The basis is Sigerson’s own acceptance of contributions in the past.
E
overlooks the fact that Sigerson’s proposal would apply only to the future conduct of city politicians
In calling Sigerson’s proposal dishonest, the author seems to think that Sigerson’s past conduct is relevant. But Sigerson isn’t trying to cheat the rules; Sigerson has to follow the new guidelines, too, if the proposal is passed. So there’s no dishonesty in the proposal.