The Conclusion says that judges should never make lessen punishment (mitigate) on the basis of motives since motives can be made to look misleading. for example if on stand, a criminal when being questioned for killing someone says "my intention was not to kill" this is his motive and based on only that, judges should NEVER lessen a punshment because essentially whether the criminal had the motive or not, he did commit the crime, so even if its not said there are other factors that should be considered besides motives in the context of judges in courtrooms when deciding punishment.

Look at what C is saying: "the legal permissibility of actions should depend on the perceivable consequences of those actions". If you parse this language out, it says, if an action is legally allowed, then the fact that it is legally allowed should depend on consequences of that action that we can identify. This could be a very broad statement as it could be any action that this answer choice could be talking about. Just because the Conclusion talks abt how judges should not decide based on motives when deciding punishment, it does not follow that laws are legally permissible if you can see their consequences. This answer choice doesn't even say anything about judges, it just talks about actions in general. If the answer choice said instead "judges should let the legal permissibility of actions depend on the consequences of those actions," then maybe it this choice would have given me more of a harder time.

Nevertheless, the correct answer choice B is super tricky. It says that its better to make an error when an incredibly harsh punishment is carried out then to make a mistake on a punishment that is too tolerable. Since the conclusion is talking about motives, and how judges should NOT decide on making a punishment less based on motives, judges are supposedly better off at making mistakes when carrying out an overly harsh punishment vs an incredibly tolerant punishment.

I understand why other answer choices are wrong, but i don't understand how B is supposed to follow from the Stem. Motives are being talked about, and how judge should not base decisions on motives so how the hell is it better to make a mistake on overly harsh punishment vs overly lenient punishment?

I definitely agree with Luebis. JY gets to the core of explaining the question. I prefer his explanations over Jons.

I still don't understand how E is wrong. The answer choice says that a distinction is being failed to make between wanting and making a living as an artist. The stimulus only accounts for making a living as other things such as being a dishwasher etc

Still don't get why B is incorrect.

This video does not explain why C is the correct answer choice.

"Some of us remained monkeys" LMAO

Why I thought A couldn't be correct was because the stimulus says hours after birth. Shouldn't the stimulus not have included the hours after birth aspect? If these abilities are innate like answer choice A says, why are we talking about hours after birth?

I choose C because how do we know that infants haven't already associated necessities of comfort and nourishments hours after their birth, since the infant necessarily got fed milk after birth.

@.hopkins Hey Nicole How can I access the recording of your superhero RC methods?

NVM emailing you right now