PT20.S1.Q22 - to hold criminals responsible

Giant Panda

Hi guys,

I wonder if you can help and check my analysis to see if it is correct or not.

The question is here: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-22/

I used logic to solve this question.

The logic goes of the following:

Law abiding people->Environment->Character->Criminal Action->Crime
And the conclusion states:
Crime->Law abiding people

That is why answer E is correct.

BinghamtonDave

I do not agree with the above assessment. This is an extremely complicated question that in my estimation, really does not lend itself to the mapping of conditional logic. If this approach works for you, then stick with it. The below engagement and approach worked for me.

Breakdown: Essentially, the argument advocates the removal of agency from people as a method of exculpation, and in the very next breathe puts the onus on the admittedly "law abiding" people for crimes. Doing all this on the basis that all actions are products of the environment.

Leaving these personal disagreements aside: which I do think are helpful because they can keep one engaged in a complex argument like this, the argument is set-refuting.

Think about what the argument is telling us (colloquially):
Premise: Criminals are not responsible for their crimes because all actions are "products of environments"
Conclusion: "Law abiding" people are responsible for the crimes because, by their actions, they support the environment.

But aren't all actions the result of environment? By the argument's own internal logic, the people who support the environment, by their actions, cannot be held responsible for their actions.

helentang02

Claim:All actions product of environment
Claim: Not criminals but people who create environment.
Conclusion: Law abiding people are responsible for crime.

First thing after I read the stimulus I was like "Wait whaaaaat this person does not make any sense. Didn't they just say it's the environment and not the criminals and/or people who are responsible but are the product of....? They're concluding now that it's the law abiding people??

A. I mean yeah the word "environment" was stated in the stimulus twice. I feel like this was to trick you. But I didn't see that the issue was that there were 2 meanings of ambiguity.

B. No, don't care. Defining the actions that are socially acceptable/unacceptable wouldn't be the problem. Again I think they're trying to confuse you into thinking that because they have two concepts and intertwined that it needs to be defined...or something, when they just contradict one another. lol

C. No, don't care. Distinguishing whether that person is a criminal for committing the crime doesn't really state the problem of the argument.

D. What...just no. There were no references to stats or the size "small minority of the population" as the argument.

E. Yes! When I read the conclusion I had immediately thought as I said above "Wait what... didn't you just say...." The conclusion conflicts with the premise/support given to prove that it's the environment and not the people or criminals, but instead all of a sudden the law abiding peeps are responsible. ......But, didn't you just say peoples' crimes are the product of the environment?

Anyway, that's my thought process. Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong or if there's a quicker/better away to go about this questions. Thank you!