#24 - Legal theorist: Only two types of theories of criminal

[g_lawyered]

Hi P.S.
After reading all explanations, I see how answer choice E is correct. Is the word "only" in the 1st sentence what makes this sentence to mean "but not both". See previous explanation:

"The first sentence creates a clear either/or-but-not-both dichotomy: acceptable theories are either rehabilitationist or retributivist, but not both."

This is something I missed and didn't diagram during my PT. I think this is 1 of the reasons why I couldn't pick answer E (I couldn't link conditional reasoning together).

I agree with @ Khodi7531 , I also picked answer choice D. What makes answer choice D incorrect?
Thanks in advance

[kartikharit]

only 2 types of theories can be acceptable may infer that one of them must be acceptable. if both aren't acceptable = NO crime theory is acceptable which is false, as far as I know, pl correct me if I'm wrong.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

I'll start with you, g-lawyered.

We have an either/or but not both situation here because the stimulus uses language in that first sentence to indicate that the theory can only have one purpose. Retributivst theories are "simply" to punish. There's no more to them than that. We can't give them an additional purpose. They are ONLY there to punish. Rehabilitative theories are about reforming. Reforming is not the same as punishing and would be something other than retributivist.

Answer choice (D) is not supported because we can't look beyond rehabilitative and retributivist theories to draw a conclusion about ALL criminal theories. We can only draw conclusions based on the information we have in the stimulus. We can't extend to all criminal theories.

And kartikharit, it's not the case that any theory has to be acceptable. It's just the case that any acceptable theories have to fit into one of these categories. Saying something can exist is not the same as saying it must exist. If I say that any acceptable movie I can go to must be a comedy or a musical, I am not saying that I'm definitely going to a movie. I'm just saying if I do, it's acceptable if it's one of those two. Similarly here, we have no idea if there are any acceptable criminal theories.

Hope that helps!

[g_lawyered]

Hi Racheal!
Thanks for clarifying that up.

[miriamson07]

I'd like to go off of the point made by cornflakes in the past, about the possibility of "a theory of criminal sentences that holds that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses than for an initial offense" may not be acceptable at all. I also felt iffy about answer choice E for the same reason. If I use this same language for another idea -- for example, "eating oatmeal is only acceptable if it is eaten in the morning," to me, it is clear that the sentence means oatmeal IS acceptable to eat in the morning. Am I missing something here? Thank you.

[Adam Tyson]

What you're missing is the conditional nature of the correct answer, miriamson07. It's not saying that such a theory IS acceptable. It's saying IF it's acceptable, then it has to be rehabilitationist. This is true because we know it can't be retributivist, and there are no other kinds of acceptable theories. Maybe no such theory is ever acceptable, but if it is, then we know which kind it must be.

This is just like your example, because that statement doesn't mean that eating oatmeal is acceptable. It just means IF it's acceptable, then it must be in the morning. This leaves open the possibility that it is never acceptable.