Self-study
Editorialist: Support To ensure justice in the legal system, citizens must be capable of criticizing anyone involved in determining the punishment of criminals. ███ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ █████ █████████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ████ █████████ █████ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███████
Summary
The author concludes that justice is not ensure in the legal system.
Why does the author think this?
Because in order to ensure justice in the legal system, one requirement is that citizens be able to criticize anyone involves in determining the punishment of criminals.
But when then legal system’s purpose is seen as deterrence, the system falls into the hands of certain experts who assess how criminals are affected by punishments.
Most people don’t have knowledge of how criminals are affected by punishments.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if one lacks knowledge of a particular thing, then one is unable to criticize experts in that thing. (This is why the author thinks citizens can’t criticize the people involved in determining punishment, which means we don’t meet the requirement for ensuring justice in the legal system.)
The author assumes that our legal system is one whose purpose is seen as deterrence.
20.
The editorialist's argument requires assuming █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
Most citizens view ███████ ██ █████████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ███
Not necessary, because how citizens “view justice” is irrelevant to the reasoning. What matters is whether citizens are able to criticize the people involved in determing the punishment of criminals. Citizens’ views about justice have no clear relationship to their ability to criticize.
b
In order to ██ █████ █ █████ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████████
Not necessary, because we already have a premise that tells us what’s required for justice — citizens have to be able to criticize people involved in determining the punishment of criminals. The author believes we don’t meet that requirement. Some entirely separate requirement related to considering the effect of punishment is not part of what the author views as necessary for justice.
c
The primary concern ██ █ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ████ ███ █████
Not necessary, because the argument reasons by trying to show that we don’t meet what’s required in order to ensure justice in the legal system. Whether a legal system has as its primary purpose the goal of justice is separate from whether the system in fact administers justice. The argument is concerned with whether justice actually is ensured in the legal system, not with the purpose of the system.
d
In a legal ███████ █ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████████
Not necessary, because even if a concern for punishment is compatible with an emphasis on deterrence, that doesn’t change the fact that experts are involved in determining punishment, and citizens can still lack the ability to criticize those experts. The argument’s reasoning is not based on incompatibility of various goals of the legal system; it’s based on citizens’ inability to criticize certain people.
e
Citizens without knowledge █████ ███ ███ █████ ████████ ███████████ ██████ █████████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██ ████ █████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if citizens without knowledge about how punishments affect criminals ARE CAPABLE of criticizing experts in that area — then we have no reason to think citizens are unable to criticize the people involved in determining punishment. And then we have no reason to think we don’t meet what’s required in order to ensure justice in the legal system.