Emily,
You're onto something here. And yes, when I first saw the language they used in answer choice (D), I wasn't immediately sold on it. In the end, though, it's the best answer out of the five. Let's take a look:
The author argues that it's unfair for all criminals to pay a victim surcharge, because the surcharge is used to help victims or violent crimes only. A petty thief is not a violent criminal, so why should he compensate the victims of someone else's crime? To strengthen this line of reasoning, we need to identify a principle that takes the petty thief off the hook, so to speak.
Answer choice (D) does that: if criminals aren't required to pay for services provided to victims of crimes that are more serious than their own crime, then clearly the petty thief shouldn't be asked to pay the "victim surcharge." While the two types of crimes (violent and non-violent) are not explicitly compared in terms of severity, this is the sort of plausible, commonsense assumption that test-makers will require you to make: violent crimes are more serious than non-violent crimes. Remember - when answering questions, it's OK to bring in assumptions that are by commonsense standards plausible, reasonable, or "common knowledge." This is an instance of this sort of an assumption.
Answer choice (A) is not applicable to the conclusion, as deterrence is never mentioned as a rationale for the imposition of punishment.
Answer choice (B) is attractive, but incorrect. If the overall penalty for violent crimes is always more severe than the overall penalty for non-violent crimes, does that mean that our petty thief is off the hook? Not necessarily! As you point out yourself, the overall penalty for violent crimes may already be much greater (longer prison sentences, possible death penalty, etc.). So, this principle wouldn't necessarily get our petty thief off the hook - he may still be required to pay the 30 bucks.
Answer choice (C) is incorrect, because the proceeds are indeed used to provide services. This principle would apply to violent and non-violent criminals alike.
Answer choice (E) is incorrect, because it allows the "victim surcharge" to apply to everyone, including thieves. If our thief is supposed to pay an amount "
at least as great as the value of property stolen," this would only establish a
minimum fine, not a
maximum fine. There is nothing stopping us from adding a victim surcharge on top of that fine.
Good job on this one!
Thanks,
