Suarez: Would you say the same about nonviolent crimes, such as tax evasion? Surely mandatory penalties are a useful deterrent in these cases. At any rate, I am confident that mandatory sentences prevent most people who would otherwise physically harm others from doing so.
Speaker 1 Summary
Huang claims that, to reduce violent crime, we should address the root causes of violence instead of imposing mandatory sentences. As support, Huang explains that most people who commit violent crimes don’t think about the likely punishment. Also, people who don’t commit violent crimes just aren’t inclined to. This indicates that mandatory sentences don’t make much difference.
Speaker 2 Summary
Suarez argues towards an implied conclusion that mandatory sentences are a useful deterrent. To support this, Suarez says that mandatory penalties do deter nonviolent crimes (implying a possible analogous effect for violent crimes). Suarez also claims that mandatory sentences prevent most physical violence from happening.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. Huang and Suarez disagree about whether mandatory sentences deter violent crime.
A
the best way to reduce violent crime is to address the root causes of violence
Huang says that we should reduce violent crime by addressing the root causes of violence, which could be taken as agreement with this claim. However, Suarez never talks about the merit of addressing the root causes of violence.
B
people who commit violent crimes deserve harsh punishment
Neither speaker talks about whether people deserve punishment. Their debate is about the practical effect of mandatory sentences, not the moral aspect of deservingness.
C
people who commit violent crimes carefully consider how they will be punished for their crimes
Huang explicitly disagrees with this claim, but Suarez doesn’t give an opinion. Although Suarez thinks that mandatory sentences can deter violent crime, that’s not the same as saying that potential offenders always carefully consider potential punishments.
D
mandatory sentences will deter most people who might otherwise commit violent crimes
Huang disagrees with this but Suarez agrees, making this the point of disagreement. Huang’s argument indicates that mandatory sentences don’t have a deterrent effect on violent crime. Suarez, however, directly states a belief that mandatory sentences prevent most violence.
E
severe penalties reduce the incidence of tax evasion
Suarez most likely agrees with this, but Huang never talks about nonviolent crimes such as tax evasion. We don’t know what Huang thinks about the possible deterrent effect of severe penalties in such cases.
Summarize Argument
Metallic mirrors can’t be used when minimizing energy loss is important. Why not? The mirrors absorb light and waste energy. This is because electrons in the metallic mirror move when light strikes it. This uses energy and makes the reflected image dimmer.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the practical application of the process described: “metallic mirrors cannot be used in applications in which minimizing energy loss is important”
A
Metallic mirrors reduce the effectiveness of high-powered lasers.
Lasers are just an example the author uses of applications where minimizing energy loss is important. The conclusion does not center on these devices alone.
B
Part of the light falling on metallic mirrors tends to be absorbed by them.
This is part of the premises - reasoning for why these mirrors should not be used where minimizing energy loss is important.
C
High-powered lasers require mirrors that conserve energy.
The conclusion centers on these mirrors not being used where minimizing energy loss is important. It does not talk about what mirrors should be used, nor does it focus on lasers alone.
D
A tendency to waste energy is the most significant disadvantage of metallic mirrors.
The stimulus just discusses that the mirrors do waste energy. It does not draw conclusions about how significant the disadvantage is.
E
Metallic mirrors are unsuitable for applications where it is crucial to minimize energy loss.
This accurately paraphrases the conclusion. The author establishes that they are unsuitable and explains why.