Self-study
Conclusion The position that punishment should be proportional to how serious the offense is but that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments than first-time offenders is unsustainable. ██ ███████ ████ ██████████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████████████ ████ █████████ ██████ █████ █████ █████████████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ███████████████ ██████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The position that criminals should be punished in proportion to the severity of their crimes but that repeat offenders should receive harsher sentences is flawed. It wrongly assumes that past misdeeds are relevant to the seriousness of an offense. This introduces a vague standard that would make almost every other consideration relevant, making it impossible to apply this proportionality principle.
Identify Argument Part
The statement in the question stem is a consequence of the “unsustainable” position that the author’s refuting. The author’s saying that if you take that unsustainable position, it would lead to a series of questionable implications.
Note that the statement in the question stem, taken on its own, is not support for the argument. The author implicitly disagrees with that statement. Rather, it’s the fact that the unsustainable position implies the statement in the question stem that serves as support for the argument.
17.
The statement that considerations as ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ███████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
a
It is a █████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██ █████████
The statement is not a premise. It does not support any other claim in the stimulus. It is an undesirable consequence that would result from believing the argument that the author rejects.
b
It is a █████████ ████████ ████ █ ████████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███████
The author does not want to defend this statement. The author strongly disagrees with this statement.
c
It is the ███████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██████ █████████
This is not the main conclusion of the argument. The author does not believe in the truth of this statement, so it cannot be the main conclusion.
d
It is an █████████ █████████ ███████████ ██ █ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███████████
This is an accurate description of the statement. The author argues that considering remote actions (an untenable consequence) is a result of the rejected view that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments.
e
It is a ███████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
This statement is not a premise and there is no sub-conclusion for it to support.