#14 - Criminologist: A judicial system that tries and punish

[Nina]

As for answer choice B "about one-fourth of all suspects first arrested for a crime are actually innocent", why is it incorrect?
Many Thanks!

[Joshua Kronick]

Hey Nina, great question! Notice how the author is only making his conclusion in regard to violent criminals. He is concerned only with how a prompt punishment for criminals deters crime. Answer choice A in fact weakens that relationship, because if criminals do not think before they act, how can prompt punishment be considered a deterrent? It never went through their head while they were committing the crime. Answer choice B is is talking about something the author isn't committed to, those who are "suspects." Be very careful for answer choices that are overly vague, broad, or seem to be dealing with a subject matter that is outside what the author is commenting on.

[Nina]

Hi Josh,

Thank you for your response! It is very helpful

[htngo12]

Hi,

I didn't get this argument as I was reading it. The only thing I picked up was the conditional statement of "A judicial system that tries and punishes criminals without delay is an effective deterrent."

As I am rereading the stem, the conclusion states "If potential violent criminals know that being caught means prompt punishment, they will hesitate to break the law."

With your explanation of the argument, the criminologist is only concerned with punishing criminals as an effective deterrent.

As I put the pieces together, the gap is where the criminals know about the prompt punishment. I could look at it as "Do criminals really ever think about their consequences before their crimes, even if they are repeated offenders?"

Since the answer would be "no", then answer (A) weakens the argument because it counters the notion of criminals knowing, right?

I originally picked (C) as my answer, but then realized it was a wrong choice. Is my reasoning with this argument on the right track?

[Clay Cooper]

Hi htngo12,

Your understanding is spot-on. Good job!

[Sambenz]

Hi,

I didn't get this argument as I was reading it. The only thing I picked up was the conditional statement of "A judicial system that tries and punishes criminals without delay is an effective deterrent."

As I am rereading the stem, the conclusion states "If potential violent criminals know that being caught means prompt punishment, they will hesitate to break the law."

I disagree with this assessment of the question.

To me the structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Long drawn out trials (...) Add of criminals feelings of invulnerability.
Premise 2: But if potential violent criminals know that being caught means prompt punishment, they will hesitate to break the law.
Conclusion: A judicial system that tries and punishes criminals without delay is an effective deterrent.

To weaken the argument you prove that the conclusion is incorrect by showing that the conditional statement it contains is untrue. The conditional statement is:

Judicial system punishing swiftly effective violent crime deterrent.

With answer A it shows that even if a judicial system punishes swiftly, it won't necessarily be an effective deterrent as violent criminals don't always premeditate their crimes.

[Adam Tyson]

I agree, Sambenz - the conclusion here is the first sentence, not the last one, and your analysis of what we are looking for, and how answer A provides it, is correct. Good work!