- Wed Feb 14, 2024 3:02 pm
#105306
Hi TootyFrooty,
Yes, let's work this out! With a question like this, you'll want to start by identifying the conclusion. In this case, we know that the last sentence is the conclusion, partly because we see the conclusion indicator "therefore":
Conclusion: A successful legal system prohibits only those few behaviors that citizens find absolutely intolerable.
Now, we can move to the answer choices. Answer choices (A), (B), and (E) should be eliminated fairly quickly; (A) because the conclusion does not imply anything about police officers, (B) because we already found the conclusion, and (E) because the argument is not trying to discredit the idea that the purpose of a law is to deter actions by the threat of punishment.
That leaves us with (C) and (D). An "intermediate conclusion" is almost like a premise, with the one big difference that an intermediate conclusion needs to have at least one premise, and also act as a premise by supporting the main conclusion. There is not a premise that supports the first sentence of the stimulus—it's just stated straightforwardly as a fact, right? Therefore, we can eliminate (D), leaving us with (C) as the correct answer.
This is how I would write out the argument, if that is helpful for you:
Premise 1: Purpose of a law is to deter certain actions by threatening punishment, and this only works if punishment seems likely
Premise 2: The likelihood that someone will be punished for committing a certain action decreases as the number of those prohibited actions increase
Conclusion: Therefore, a successful legal system prohibits only those few behaviors that citizens find absolutely intolerable.
Hope this helps!
