- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed May 18, 2016 3:08 pm
#25112
Passage Discussion
The passage introduces two competing viewpoints regarding crime deterrence, and elaborates on a third viewpoint that seeks to reconcile them.
Paragraph One:
The passage begins by introducing two competing viewpoints regarding crime deterrence, each based on a different set of assumptions about what causes criminal behavior. On one side of the debate are those who believe that criminal acts are motivated by external influences, and can therefore be reduced by increasing access to economic opportunities. On the other are those who regard the decision to commit a crime as an individual choice, which can be influenced by increasing criminal penalties and law enforcement efforts. At the end of the paragraph, the author suggests that a newly introduced economic principle can reconcile these two positions.
Paragraph Two:
In the second paragraph the author introduces the concept of utility maximization. According to this principle, rational individuals will choose to pursue whatever action maximizes their anticipated overall satisfaction (or “expected utility”). Deliberate crimes can therefore be analyzed in the same way as any other action, i.e. as a rational economic choice.
Paragraph Three:
In the final paragraph the author explains how the utility maximization principle can be used to reconcile the crime deterrence debate. If an individual’s decision to commit a crime is a rational economic choice, deterrence can result both from increasing the cost of criminal activity and from increasing the expected utility from lawful pursuits. Utility maximization therefore includes elements of both deterrence strategies described in the first paragraph, and provides the best deterrence method.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
There are three Viewpoints presented in the passage: Those of the “scholars” (line 5) who believe that criminal behavior results from external, societal factors; the view from “the other side” of the debate (line 12) holding that the commission of a crime is the result of individual choice; and the “recent legal scholarship” (line 18) which introduces the concept of utility maximization. The author’s perspective is aligned with the principle of utility maximization, as the next two paragraphs serve to elaborate on its significance.
The Structure of the passage is as follows:
The passage begins by describing two competing strategies of crime deterrence, according to which crime deterrence requires either maximizing access to economic opportunities, or increasing penalties and fines. The primary Argument (with which the author clearly agrees) shows that these two positions are actually complimentary.
The Main Point of this passage is to describe the current crime deterrence debate and introduce a new perspective—that of the utility maximization principle—showing that both sides of the debate are essentially correct.
The passage introduces two competing viewpoints regarding crime deterrence, and elaborates on a third viewpoint that seeks to reconcile them.
Paragraph One:
The passage begins by introducing two competing viewpoints regarding crime deterrence, each based on a different set of assumptions about what causes criminal behavior. On one side of the debate are those who believe that criminal acts are motivated by external influences, and can therefore be reduced by increasing access to economic opportunities. On the other are those who regard the decision to commit a crime as an individual choice, which can be influenced by increasing criminal penalties and law enforcement efforts. At the end of the paragraph, the author suggests that a newly introduced economic principle can reconcile these two positions.
Paragraph Two:
In the second paragraph the author introduces the concept of utility maximization. According to this principle, rational individuals will choose to pursue whatever action maximizes their anticipated overall satisfaction (or “expected utility”). Deliberate crimes can therefore be analyzed in the same way as any other action, i.e. as a rational economic choice.
Paragraph Three:
In the final paragraph the author explains how the utility maximization principle can be used to reconcile the crime deterrence debate. If an individual’s decision to commit a crime is a rational economic choice, deterrence can result both from increasing the cost of criminal activity and from increasing the expected utility from lawful pursuits. Utility maximization therefore includes elements of both deterrence strategies described in the first paragraph, and provides the best deterrence method.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
There are three Viewpoints presented in the passage: Those of the “scholars” (line 5) who believe that criminal behavior results from external, societal factors; the view from “the other side” of the debate (line 12) holding that the commission of a crime is the result of individual choice; and the “recent legal scholarship” (line 18) which introduces the concept of utility maximization. The author’s perspective is aligned with the principle of utility maximization, as the next two paragraphs serve to elaborate on its significance.
The Structure of the passage is as follows:
- Paragraph One:
Introduce the two competing views of deterring deliberate crime, and mention a third perspective that is meant to reconcile them.
Paragraph Two: Elaborate on the economic principle of utility maximization.
Paragraph Three: Apply the utility maximization principle to the crime deterrence debate.
The passage begins by describing two competing strategies of crime deterrence, according to which crime deterrence requires either maximizing access to economic opportunities, or increasing penalties and fines. The primary Argument (with which the author clearly agrees) shows that these two positions are actually complimentary.
The Main Point of this passage is to describe the current crime deterrence debate and introduce a new perspective—that of the utility maximization principle—showing that both sides of the debate are essentially correct.