This is an argument part question because we are being asked for how a certain claim functions.

So I'm going to break down the argument first, and then I'm going to come back for the claim that we're being asked about.

To ensure that the legal system remains just, it is important to guarantee that lawbreaking does not give lawbreakers an unfair advantage over law abiders.

So if we want to ensure that the legal system is just, this is important to do.

Make sure the criminals aren't going to get an advantage over the people who are not criminals.

Thus, and so we're about to get a conclusion, thus, notwithstanding any other goals that criminal punishment may serve,

and that part, by the way, is not a conclusion, that's what you might think of as a concession.

The author here is saying, even though there are other goals that criminal punishment may serve,

here is my conclusion, here is what I'm trying to convince you of.

Criminal punishment should certainly attempt to ensure that criminal wrongdoing remains profitless.

The author is saying, let's try to make sure criminal wrongdoing remains profitless when we are punishing people.

And why should we do that?

Well, because if we want to ensure that legal system remains just, you have to prevent the criminals from getting an advantage over the non-criminals.

So the first sentence here is a premise.

The reason we know it's a premise is because it's being offered as support for the conclusion,

and we know that this very last part is a conclusion because of the word thus.

That's a conclusion indicator telling us that what is in parentheses here is a conclusion,

and so it has to be supported by the previous sentence here, the sentence immediately before the thus.

That's what makes the first sentence a premise.

And just to be clear, let me go ahead and label that this is a conclusion, the first sentence is a premise.

So what are we being asked about?

We're being asked for the role of the claim that it is important to guarantee that lawbreaking does not give lawbreakers an unfair advantage over law abiders.

And that's this idea right over here.

What is the role of that claim?

Well, we just thought about that.

That's part of the premise.

It's being offered as part of the support for the conclusion.

So that's what I'd have in mind before going to the answers.

Now, this is very tempting to people who are confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.

The first sentence here is not saying that if you guarantee lawbreaking does not give lawbreakers an unfair advantage,

that that will ensure a legal system remains just.

And I know that for many of you it sounds like that because don't they say the word ensure right over here?

Take a look at this example statement.

If I say to ensure that I get a 180 on the LSAT, it is important to get good sleep.

What does this statement mean?

Is this saying that getting good sleep, if I do that, will automatically ensure that I get a 180?

No, that's not what it's saying.

What this is actually saying is it's presenting good sleep as something that's more like a necessary condition in order to get a 180.

This is one of the things that you need to do in order to get a 180,

but that doesn't mean this by itself is automatically going to give you a 180 or get you a 180.

And you can think of other examples as well that have this same structure.

For example, to ensure that you cook a delicious steak, it's important to get a good cut of meat.

Does that mean getting a good cut of meat by itself is going to ensure that you can cook a delicious steak?

Not necessarily.

That's just one component that you need to have.

So that's why if you are very attracted to answer choice A, you're misunderstanding the meaning of the first sentence.

You are thinking that that first sentence means guaranteeing lawbreaking does not give lawbreakers an unfair advantage

will automatically be sufficient to ensure that a legal system remains just.

But that's not what it means.

It's saying something more like it's a necessary condition to ensure that a legal system remains just.

So it is wrong to say that that underlined part, if fulfilled, will ensure it remains just.

A is not correct.

And that sounds exactly right.

First of all, I know it is support for the conclusion that we already thought about that.

It was a premise.

And in addition, it does appear to be a principle, meaning it's a general statement.

It's not a statement about some specific case, some specific kind of punishment.

It's a general statement, and so you can call it a principle.

So B looks very good here.

Let's just make sure the other ones are wrong.

Well, it's not a conclusion.

The underlined part is a premise for the reasons I explained in the first half of the explanation.

Now, this might be tempting because it does identify the first part as a premise, which it is.

But the problem with D is that it's just misdescribing the conclusion.

The premise is actually not presented as support for the claim that the most important goal of criminal punishment is to ensure criminal wrongdoing remains profitless.

The conclusion is saying criminal punishment should attempt to ensure that criminal wrongdoing remains profitless.

That's not the same thing as saying that ensuring criminal wrongdoing remains profitless is the most important goal.

There's a difference between saying X is the most important goal and X should be done.

Now, I know that they sound very similar, but I think you'll agree that they are not the same claim.

The second one is telling us what someone should do.

They are commanding us or recommending to us a course of action.

You should do this.

But the first one is not necessarily doing that.

It's just an expression of a ranking of values.

When it comes to goals, this one is at the top.

That's not the same thing as saying you should do that.

Now, even if you think that the author probably agrees that it's the most important goal of criminal punishment,

the specific claim that was made was this one right over here, that something should be done.

So that's why answer choice D is not correct here.

What it should have said was it is a premise presented as support for the claim that criminal punishment should certainly attempt to ensure that criminal wrongdoing remains profitless.

Now, separately, it actually is not the case that the author has to agree with the idea that this is the most important goal.

So that's another reason that you can get rid of it.

But I don't want to dwell on that right now because even if you do believe that the author thinks that it's the most important goal,

that just doesn't match up with what the conclusion says.

And that would be enough of a reason to eliminate D.

Well, there is no other argument that the author is trying to refute or rebut or go against.

There's no indication anyone ever argued that there are goals other than guaranteeing that lawbreaking remains profitless.

And in addition, the author here is not even denying that idea.

The author is acknowledging that there might be other goals besides guaranteeing lawbreaking remains profitless.

What the author is saying is that we should still do this despite those other goals.

So that's why E is not correct.