- Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:07 pm
#46741
Hi LilMiss,
Sure, glad to help! The argument here is a causal one, although there is a slight twist because the criminologist asserts that longer sentences don't cause a reduction in people committing robberies. So, every wrong answer will support that sentences don't have a reductive effect, and the one correct answer will either have no effect or help show that longer sentences do help reduce the crime rate.
Answer choice (B): This offers an example where longer sentences did not reduce the rate at which those crimes were committed. Is it a problem that this is about embezzlement whereas the argument is about robbery? No, because those two crimes have enough similarity (especially when you consider that embezzlement is a specific form of robbery), and the LSAT allows for the use of analogies when making a point. Ultimately, this is exactly the type of thing that supports the criminologist's sentence because it illustrates the point she is making.
Answer choice (C): This is a factual answer that simply notes that prison terms have decreased in length recently, but it doesn't tie those decreases to any information about deterrence or even the intent of shorter sentences (maybe people are committing less serious crimes, which would explain shorter sentences). It's the kind of answer that elicits a "huh, ok" response, and its one that has no effect on the argument being made.
Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!
