- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:00 am
#33146
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (C)
The author of this letter to the editor expresses a conclusion that differs from the position apparently taken by the editor. It seems the editor previously stated that if the government were to confiscate a portion of the wages of convicted burglars when they reenter the workforce, then that confiscation would be a form of stealing, and would be an abuse of power by the government.
The letter author disagrees, citing a proposal now being considered. Under the proposal, the government would confiscate the wages of convicted burglars reentering the workforce in order to fund an account to compensate burglary victims. The author does not concede that such confiscation is stealing. However, the author concludes that, even if such confiscation were a form of stealing, the confiscation would still be justified.
This conclusion results from the application of some principle, or rule, that is not expressly stated in the stimulus. The failure to expressly make this rule part of the argument is a logical flaw. Your prephrase in this Strengthen question is that the correct answer choice will provide a rule supporting the notion that stealing from a person who burglarized others is justified, if the purpose of the theft is to compensate burglary victims. While the correct answer choice likely will not use these exact terms, it must perform the same role as the prephrase statement, namely providing a reason that supports the conclusion that the proposed confiscation is justified, even if the confiscation is a form of stealing.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because the conclusion dealt with the issue of whether confiscation of a convicted burglar’s wages, whether or not such confiscation is a form of stealing, is justified when the purpose of the confiscation is to fund an account to compensate burglary victims. Information stating that money stolen from a burglar should be given to that burglar’s victims does not address the issue of justification. This answer choice improperly addresses the distribution of the money, rather than whether it is justified to take the money from the burglar in the first place.
Answer choice (B): The proposal under consideration did not contemplate direct compensation by each convicted burglar to that burglar’s respective victims. Rather, the proposal was to fund an account for burglary victims generally. So, this principle does not apply to the conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. While this answer choice does not justify the conclusion that the proposed confiscation is itself justified, it does provide at least some support for that position. The support provided by this answer choice derives from the rule that the motive prompting an action, in this case the desire to compensate burglary victims, determines whether an action, here the confiscation of wages from convicted burglars, is justified.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because it merely describes what is required for a crime to be justified, rather than providing support for the conclusion that this confiscation is justified.
Answer choice (E): The rule provided in this answer choice, if applied to the author’s argument, would invalidate the author’s conclusion to the extent it held that the proposal would be justified even if the proposed confiscation were a form of stealing.
Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (C)
The author of this letter to the editor expresses a conclusion that differs from the position apparently taken by the editor. It seems the editor previously stated that if the government were to confiscate a portion of the wages of convicted burglars when they reenter the workforce, then that confiscation would be a form of stealing, and would be an abuse of power by the government.
The letter author disagrees, citing a proposal now being considered. Under the proposal, the government would confiscate the wages of convicted burglars reentering the workforce in order to fund an account to compensate burglary victims. The author does not concede that such confiscation is stealing. However, the author concludes that, even if such confiscation were a form of stealing, the confiscation would still be justified.
This conclusion results from the application of some principle, or rule, that is not expressly stated in the stimulus. The failure to expressly make this rule part of the argument is a logical flaw. Your prephrase in this Strengthen question is that the correct answer choice will provide a rule supporting the notion that stealing from a person who burglarized others is justified, if the purpose of the theft is to compensate burglary victims. While the correct answer choice likely will not use these exact terms, it must perform the same role as the prephrase statement, namely providing a reason that supports the conclusion that the proposed confiscation is justified, even if the confiscation is a form of stealing.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because the conclusion dealt with the issue of whether confiscation of a convicted burglar’s wages, whether or not such confiscation is a form of stealing, is justified when the purpose of the confiscation is to fund an account to compensate burglary victims. Information stating that money stolen from a burglar should be given to that burglar’s victims does not address the issue of justification. This answer choice improperly addresses the distribution of the money, rather than whether it is justified to take the money from the burglar in the first place.
Answer choice (B): The proposal under consideration did not contemplate direct compensation by each convicted burglar to that burglar’s respective victims. Rather, the proposal was to fund an account for burglary victims generally. So, this principle does not apply to the conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. While this answer choice does not justify the conclusion that the proposed confiscation is itself justified, it does provide at least some support for that position. The support provided by this answer choice derives from the rule that the motive prompting an action, in this case the desire to compensate burglary victims, determines whether an action, here the confiscation of wages from convicted burglars, is justified.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because it merely describes what is required for a crime to be justified, rather than providing support for the conclusion that this confiscation is justified.
Answer choice (E): The rule provided in this answer choice, if applied to the author’s argument, would invalidate the author’s conclusion to the extent it held that the proposal would be justified even if the proposed confiscation were a form of stealing.
the stealing is justified.