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.
3.
The claim in the first ████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
a
It is offered ██ █ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████
The claim in the first sentence is not a premise, nor is it about the control of an agent’s actions. One having no control of their desires supports the main conclusion of the argument (not the other way around).
b
It is offered ██ ██████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████
This is not background information; it is the main conclusion of the argument. The rest of the argument supports this (the author’s main conclusion).
c
It is offered ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████
The claim in the first sentence is the main conclusion of the argument. The following sentences are filled with premises and sub-conclusions that support the author’s main point.
d
It is offered ██ ████████ ███ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████ ███████ █████
This is factually inaccurate. The argument does not compare the importance of protecting life and property to retribution. Furthermore, this is not evidence; it is the main conclusion that the evidence is directed to support.
e
It is offered ██ ████████ ███ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ███████████ ████████ ████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████
The first sentence is not evidence for this claim. That lawbreaking proceeds from ignorance of the law or one’s own choices is evidence for the author’s main point (the first sentence).