Legal theorist: Only two types of theories of criminal sentencing can be acceptable—retributivist theories, which hold that the purpose of sentences is simply to punish, and rehabilitationist theories, which hold that a sentence is a means to reform the offender. A retributivist theory is not acceptable unless it conforms to the principle that the harshness of a punishment should be proportional to the seriousness of the offense. Retributivist theories that hold that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses than for an initial offense violate this principle, since repeat offenses may be no more serious than the initial offense.

Summary

If a theory of criminal sentencing is acceptable, it must be (1) retributivist, OR (2) rehabilitationist.

If a retributivist theory is acceptable, then it MUST conform to the principle that harshness should be proportional to seriousness.

Retributivist theories that hold criminals should get longer sentences for repeat offenses do NOT conform to the principle that harshnes should be proportional to seriousness.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

Retributivist theories that hold criminals should get longer sentences for repeat offenses are NOT acceptable (because they violate the principle of proportionality).

A
No rehabilitationist theory holds that punishing an offender is an acceptable means to reform that offender.

The stimulus doesn’t tell us about what any rehabilitationist theory holds. We know that rehab. theories might be acceptable, but we don’t know anything about the specific content of rehab. theories.

B
Reforming a repeat offender sometimes requires giving that offender longer sentences for the repeat offenses than for the initial offense.

The stimulus doesn’t tell us what is required to reform a repeat offender. We know rehab. theories want to reform the offender. But we don’t know what’s required to reform an offender.

C
Any rehabilitationist theory that holds that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses than for an initial offense is an acceptable theory.

The stimulus tells us what’s necessary for being an acceptable theory — it must be rehab. or retributivist. But we don’t know what is sufficient to make something acceptable.

D
All theories of criminal sentencing that conform to the principle that the harshness of a punishment should be proportional to the seriousness of the offense are acceptable.

The stimulus tells us what’s necessary for being an acceptable theory — it must be rehab. or retributivist. But we don’t know what is sufficient to make something acceptable.

E
A theory of criminal sentencing that holds that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses than for an initial offense is acceptable only if it is a rehabilitationist theory.

Must be true, because we know that retributivist theories that hold criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses are unacceptable. So if a theory that holds criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses could possibly be acceptable, then it must be a rehab. theory.


35 comments

define: internalize
Psychology - make (attitudes or behavior) part of one's nature by learning or unconscious assimilation.
acquire knowledge of (the rules of a language).

define: retain
keep in one's memory.


21 comments

define: internalize
Psychology - make (attitudes or behavior) part of one's nature by learning or unconscious assimilation.
acquire knowledge of (the rules of a language).

define: retain
keep in one's memory.


28 comments

Yu: The menu at Jason’s Restaurant states that no food served there contains products grown with chemical pesticides, but this cannot be true. I recently visited Kelly’s Grocery, where Jason goes personally to buy the restaurant’s produce, and I noticed workers unloading produce from a truck belonging to MegaFarm, which I know uses chemical pesticides on all of its crops.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there must be some food served at Jason’s Restaurant that contains products grown with chemical pesticides. This is based on the fact that the restaurant gets its produce from Kelly’s Grocery, and workers at the grocery were observed unloading produce from a truck belonging to Megafarm, which uses chemical pesticides on all its crops.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that Jason’s Restaurant isn’t purchasing from Kelly’s Grocery any produce that doesn’t have chemical pesticides. (Although Kellly’s Grocery purchases produce from MegaFarm, that doesn’t mean all of its produce comes from MegaFarm. Some produce could come from places that don’t use chemical pesticides.)

A
Jason does not know that Kelly’s Grocery buys produce from MegaFarm.
If anything, this strengthens the argument by suggesting Jason wouldn’t know to avoid MegaFarm’s produce.
B
Jason buys ingredients from several suppliers besides Kelly’s Grocery, and those suppliers sell only products that are grown without chemical pesticides.
The author never assumes that every ingredient Jason uses was grown with chemical pesticides. As long as the produce was grown with pesticides, the author’s argument can still make sense.
C
At Kelly’s Grocery, most of the produce items that are grown without chemical pesticides carry a label to indicate that fact.
This raises the possibility that Jason can avoid picking the produce that has chemical pesticides at Kelly’s Grocery. So, the mere fact that he shops at Kelly’s Grocery would not guarantee that he’s using produce grown with chemical pesticides.
D
None of the farms that supply produce to Kelly’s Grocery use any pesticide that has not been approved by the government as safe for use on food crops.
Whether a pesticide has been approved by the government has no impact on whether it is a chemical pesticide.
E
Most people who buy produce at Kelly’s Grocery would never knowingly buy produce grown with any chemical pesticides.
The author never assumes that Jason knowingly purchases produce that has chemical pesticides. Maybe Jason doesn’t know that what he’s buying was grown with chemical pesticides.

30 comments

When politicians describe their opponents’ positions, they typically make those positions seem implausible and unattractive. In contrast, scholars try to make opposing positions seem as plausible and attractive as possible. Doing so makes their arguments against those positions more persuasive to their professional colleagues. Politicians should take note: they could persuade more voters with their arguments if they simply followed the scholars in charitably formulating their opponents’ positions.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that politicians could persuade more voters if they made their opponents’ positions seem plausible and attractive before arguing against them. As a premise, the author explains that scholars successfully utilize this method to make their positions more persuasive to their colleagues.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of utilizing an analogy that isn’t analogous enough, in which the author assumes that because two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect. Specifically, the author of this stimulus assumes that because politicians and scholars both try to convince others of their views, the methods that work for scholars will work well for politicians, too.

A
fails to address the possibility that an approach that works with one kind of audience will not work with another
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of utilizing an analogy that isn’t analogous enough. The author assumes that because politicians and scholars both try to convince others of their views, the methods that work for scholars will work well for politicians, too.
B
fails to account for the difficulty of coming up with charitable formulations of positions to which one is opposed
This isn’t relevant to the argument. Whether or not it’s difficult to come up with charitable positions, the author’s argument is that politicians should do so.
C
focuses on the differences between two styles of argumentation even though those styles might be suited to similar audiences
The politicians’ and scholars’ audiences are quite different—one is trying to appeal to voters and the other is targeting professional scholars—so it doesn’t matter if the different argumentation styles might be suited to similar audiences.
D
takes for granted that both scholars and politicians have persuasion as their aim
The author tells us in the argument’s context and premise that politicians and scholars attempt to persuade voters and colleagues. This is a fact the author provides as part of the foundation for the argument, not a flaw in the argument structure itself.
E
presumes, without giving justification, that politicians formulate the positions of their opponents uncharitably even when they share those positions
The author doesn’t say that politicians always paint their opponents’ positions as implausible, just that they “typically” do. We don’t know if she makes this presumption. Even if she did, it would be irrelevant to the conclusion that politicians should adopt scholars’ methods.

16 comments