Self-paced
Lawyer: In addition to any other penalties, convicted criminals must now pay a "victim surcharge" of $30. ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████
Objective: Find the Principle
The lawyer concludes that making convicted criminals pay a new surcharge is unfair. This is because nonviolent offenders also have to pay the surcharge, while the surcharge only funds services for victims of violent crimes.
In order to justify this reasoning, we need a principle to bridge between the premises and the conclusion. Before we can do that, though, we have to identify the gap that we're bridging, what's left out of the argument. In our stimulus, the lawyer doesn’t actually explain why it's "unfair" to make all criminals pay into a fund for victims of violent crime. So this value judgment about unfairness is what we need to bridge.
To help justify the lawyer's conclusion, we’re looking for a principle confirming that it's unfair for nonviolent criminals to have to contribute money towards services related to violent crimes.
6.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████
a
The penalties for █ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ██████████
The lawyer’s argument isn’t concerned with deterring or otherwise preventing crime, just with the unfairness in requiring nonviolent criminals to pay for the consequences of violent crime. Because this principle is all about deterrence, it can't get us to a conclusion about fairness.
b
The overall penalty ███ █ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██████
The lawyer doesn't actually discuss how severe the overall penalties for different crimes should be; the argument is much more limited than that. The lawyer's point is that it's unfair to make nonviolent criminals specifically pay a surcharge to support violent crime victims.
Whether nonviolent criminals have to pay this surcharge isn't related to the overall severity of their punishment—if a nonviolent criminal gets a 10-year prison sentence but no surcharge, as far as we know the lawyer would have no issue with that. (B) is incorrect not because it's too strong, but because it relates to a different issue than the argument: severity of punishment as a whole rather than the fairness of this specific surcharge.
c
A surcharge intended ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ █████████
This principle has nothing to do with the fairness of levying the surcharge on nonviolent criminals, meaning it can't bridge to the correct conclusion. Besides which, there’s no indication that the money is going to anything other than services for victims—so this principle doesn't trigger either..
d
A criminal should ███ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ █████████ ███
The support says that petty criminals must now pay for services for victims of violent (i.e. more serious) crimes. That triggers this principle, which tells us that nonviolent criminals should not be forced to pay for such services. In other words, it's unfair to do so—which is exactly the lawyer's conclusion, meaning this principle effectively bridges the gap.
e
Convicted thieves should ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████
The argument doesn't mention how the value of any stolen property compares to the surcharge, nor does it discuss what a better fine amount would be. The lawyer is saying that levying a surcharge on nonviolent criminals in support of victims of violent crimes is unfair, and this principle doesn't get us closer to that conclusion.