#15 - Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became

[ellenb]

Dear Powescore,

For this question I thought that the answer is A and actually it is E. I just want to know why A is wrong and E is the right answer.

Now, that I thought about it, is it because in A, the wording is too strong "should allways" but the language in the stimulus seemed strong too.

Thanks in advance

Ellen

[BethRibet]

Hi Ellenb,

Thanks again for your question. The issue with (A) is an answer choice is not that it's strongly worded. Given that you're looking for a principle that justifies the answer choice, stronger emphasis or certainty (e.g. only, always) is actually an asset. Answer choice A however, does not directly address the problem identified in the stimulus. That is the problem is that juries may acquit defendants they do believe to be guilty, to avoid excessive sentences. A, which specifies that juries should acquit when they are *NOT* sure of guilt, does not actually address or resolve that problem, nor does it undermine the advocate's conclusion that therefore mandatory jail sentences should be repealed.

E, on the other hand, indicates that a change of the type contemplated (reversing the mandatory sentencing rule) should only take place if there is no alternative solution. Since there may be alternatives solutions that will fix the problem of wrong verdicts (i.e. acquitting a guilty defendant), this does undermine the advocate's claim. We don't need to know what those solutions might be, it's enough that there's a possibility.

Hope this helps!!
Beth

[mN2mmvf]

We don't need to know what those solutions might be, it's enough that there's a possibility.

How do we even know that there's a possibility? I don't see anything in the stimulus that suggests that.

[James Finch]

Hi MN,

The public advocate sets up a false dichotomy: either we allow the current law to stand, with all its faults, or we must repeal it to get rid of its faults. The public advocate's conclusion is that the latter is necessary, because the problem he cites (guilty defendants being acquitted soley based on their mandatory punishment if convicted) is so grave that it requires repeal.

(E) challenges this false dichotomy by introducing the possibility that instead of a full repeal of a law, we may instead modify it so as to reduce or eliminate the problems it currently has. So flexibility in sentencing could be introduced, with judges given more leeway, or mandatory minimum sentences be reduced, and thus weakens the necessity of a full repeal of the law.

Hope this clears things up!

[dbrowning]

Hi,

I chose 'B' over E, and I think it may be a language issue. I took "A system of justice should clearly define what
the specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system." to refer to the idea that judges should not have discretionary power - instead, their actions should be clearly defined. The mandatory sentencing laws would provide this clear definition for action.

I also see why E is correct, but I chose B because B presents a definitive statement, whereas E presents a conditional. Definitive statements, all other things equal, are stronger than conditionals.

Am I correct in my assessment that I made a mistake of language assuming that "actions" equated to judge's sentencing?

[James Finch]

Hi D,

The fact that the correct answer choice is a conditional doesn't matter if it does what we need it to do. Here, we want to rebut the public advocate, and that means we need to conclude that a reversal of the existing laws is not necessary, which is what the contrapositive of (E) gives us.

The issue with (B) is that we don't know that strictly defining judges' actions (including sentencing) matters to the public advocate's argument; we'd need to know the specifics of how their actions/powers are defined. One could, for example, define judges' powers as discretionary, or as we have now, force mandatory sentences on them. Either way, the actions they are to perform are strictly defined, while the actual argument is over whether they should have discretion by law or not.

Hope this clears things up!

[vincev01]

Hi,

I would like some further clarification on why E is the correct answer. I understand why the other answer choices are incorrect, but I struggle to understand how we can assume it is "feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification" from the stimulus. From my understanding in Principle/Justify questions we need that condition to be triggered for that answer choice to be relevant. I do not see anywhere in the stimulus that the law can be modified. I saw in the previous comment thread that the Public Advocate's reply suggests a false dichotomy, but I am failing to see how we can confidently say that the law can or cannot be modified. Does the answer lie in the fact that we are unsure whether or not modifications are feasible, in which it is not sufficient to suggest that a law should or should not be reversed?

[Adam Tyson]

Does the answer lie in the fact that we are unsure whether or not modifications are feasible

Exactly, vincev01! The Public Advocate acts as if there are only two options here: keep the law as it is, with its potentially bad results in some cases, or repeal it. It's not up to us to assume that there are no other options; it's up to the person taking that position to demonstrate that those are the only options, and they failed to do that. That leaves open the possibility that something else could be done instead. Answer E attacks that ambiguity.

E doesn't prove that we should not repeal the law, because we cannot be sure that there are any ways to ameliorate the undesirable consequences. But we aren't trying to disprove the Public Advocate's conclusion. We are only trying to find some answer that would weaken that position. We might think of this as strengthening the position of the Politician, but I find it helpful to think of it as weaking the Public Advocate, because of the phrase "strongest basis for countering." Countering = arguing against = undermining = weakening. Looked at that way, E definitely weakens the Public Advocate's claim, putting them on the defensive.