Self-study
Legal theorist: Conclusion It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people. ███ ████████ ██ █ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ██████████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████ ████ █████████ ██████ ███████ █████████████ █ ███████████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████████ █████████████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
A legal theorist argues that incarceration is only reasonable when someone is a threat to the property or lives of others. The rest of the argument supports this claim by explaining that lawbreaking itself stems from ignorance or free choice (neither of which justifies incarceration on its own).
Identify Argument Part
This is the conclusion that the rest of the argument seeks to support.
Analysis by Spaulding.Bingaman
3.
The claim in the first ████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
a
It is offered ██ █ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████
b
It is offered ██ ██████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████
c
It is offered ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████
d
It is offered ██ ████████ ███ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████ ███████ █████
e
It is offered ██ ████████ ███ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ███████████ ████████ ████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████