For a vague weakening question, that seems reasonable. Not wrecking the argument while weakening the support.

To tag on to the note below..

The reasoning in the argument plays on the unwritten assumption that violent crimes are premeditated. Premeditated is a thought out crime. Planned. And the reasoning the argument gives us leans on that assumption. But by saying, hey, violent crimes aren't necessarily premeditated, that hurts our unstated assumption. On top of that, how are those non-premeditated violent crimes being deterred?

'Long drawn out trials....may add to criminals' feelings of invulnerability'- is basically stating a supporting reason why premeditated violent crimes need to be tried and punished without delay. You draw out the trial too long, those criminals could get away with it. BUT our argument's unstated assumption about violent crimes being premeditated is renders 'Long drawn out trials..' reasoning useless.

Hope this helps, good luck!!

My two cents, I've caught myself needing to lock in just a bit more and focus in on just the passage. Blocking outside thoughts. I'll sometimes refresh the basic lessons to keep my reading comp skills sharp.

Looking forward to the MBE prep once I've kicked this test's behind and am finishing up law school! JY plugging the 7sage MBE prep..hahaha

The emphasis of necessary assumption problems we need to be most of the time aware of is the strength between the premise and the conclusion. Here the conclusion states "Therefore an effective way to ensure the survival of that species...". What answer choice could aid this part of the conclusion? C-E each do not help the argument at all. 'A' talks about other animals when our argument doesn't talk about other animals. 'B' is the correct answer because it is the only answer that 'ensures the survival of the species'. Let me know if this doesn't make sense and I'll try to rephrase. I couldn't understand this one at first either and missed it.