What's the flaw? And How do I attack this seemingly air tight argument?

Comments

• nye8870 Alum ⭐

  November 2015 1749 karma

  Do the criminals get to keep all the money they stole or does the government seize it?
• cbarker3241 Member

  November 2015 22 karma

  Are street criminals not able to commit crimes such as embezzlement or insider trading? What would happen if someone did that to a gang... do you think someone would sue someone for embezzling from their drug ring? (could be wrong in this... just taking a stab at it ;-)
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 edited November 2015 7965 karma

  
  
  WW had a lot of cash.
• apublicdisplay Alum Member

  November 2015 edited December 2015 696 karma

  Well, first of all you cited a correlation and then made a causal conclusion. You cited one possible variable, out of all the other complex array of variables at play in the law, and concluded that this was the determining factor in observed sentencing results. On the LSAT we know that the author, in making a causal argument, has controlled and limited all possible assumptions since by definition a valid argument has no assumptions. Why should I accept that argument when you haven't necessarily controlled for other variables?
  
  On top of that you're comparing criminal and civil disputes; in other words comparing apples and oranges. Why are crimes committed by street criminals compared with insider trading in the first place? Aside from the many substantive differences between the two, civil and criminal cases are prosecuted differently. In criminal cases your fate is determined by a panel of jurists and depending on the relative nature of your crime they may be more inclined to convict you whereas some civil cases like insider trading are often by a panel of judges. Could this difference have some outcome on the results? It's certainly possible.
  
  These implicit differences, along with a number of other potential distinguishing factors, could easily be the basis of an answer choice to weaken the argument you posed. I could go on and on.
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 7965 karma

  @aypublicdisplay said:
  Well, first of all you cited a correlation and then made a causal conclusion. You cited one possible variable, out of all the other complex array of variables at play in the law, and concluded that this was the determining factor in observed sentencing results.
  

  Boom.
  
  Correlation/causation is never completely airtight, friend!
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 2398 karma

  You're also making the assumption that street criminals can't afford the most expensive attorneys, which isn't something you can take for granted out of hand. There's nothing to say that criminals who commit "lucrative crimes" are necessarily the most well off; you're filling in some gaps with your own background it seems, assuming that those guilty of said lucrative crimes are necessarily Wall Street barons.
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 7965 karma

  @c.janson35 said:
  most expensive attorneys, which isn't something you can take for granted out of hand.
  

  
• allergic Alum Member Inactive Sage

  November 2015 edited November 2015 246 karma

  @aypublicdisplay Actually, insider trading and embezzlement are both crimes.
• LSAT Determined Core Member

  November 2015 199 karma

  What would the necessary assumption be? I already perceived the correlation-causation flaw but couldn't fit that as an answer choice in this necessary assumption question type
• apublicdisplay Alum Member

  November 2015 696 karma

  @allergic said:
  Actually, insider trading and embezzlement are both crimes.
  

  Some are civil suits, some are not.
• 1 Like

  nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 7965 karma

  @aypublicdisplay said:
  @allergic said:
  Actually, insider trading and embezzlement are both crimes.
  

  Some are civil suits, some are not.
  
  
  Aaaaaaand this is outside knowledge not necessary to deal with the argument. Replace all technical words with "moonpies" and "purple monkeys." Etc. Structure is what's at issue.

  Defendants who can afford expensive pink unicorns have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed purple monkeys. This explains why criminals who commit lucrative crimes like moonpies or whoopie pies are more successful at avoiding conviction than are street criminals.

  Another assumption is that court-appointed purple monkeys are not paid for by clients.
  
  If you can't see the structure, replace words in stimulus with lovely nonsense words.