Self-study
Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integrity of our system of justice, for no longer are there two kinds of justice, the kind dispensed by lenient judges and the kind dispensed by severe ones.
██████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ █ █████ █████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███████████ █████████ ████ █████████ ██ █████████
Analysis: Advocate's Reply
The advocate replies to a politician, who claims that a mandatory sentencing law has given the justice system more integrity by decreasing the impact of individual judges on sentencing decisions. The advocate broadly disagrees.
The advocate concludes that the mandatory sentencing law should be repealed, with the implication being that this law actually undermines the system's integrity. This is precisely because it reduces judges' discretion: now, juries will sometimes acquit a defendant entirely rather than subject them to an unfair mandatory sentence. The advocate explains that this leads to inaccurate verdicts, which we can infer is not desirable in our justice system.
In this argument, the advocate does not disagree with the politician's premise that mandatory sentences level the field between judges. The advocate instead relies on an implication of this premise: that juries will now improperly acquit some defendants. This implication undermines the politician's conclusion that mandatory sentences enhance the system's integrity.
14.
The public advocate responds to ███ ██████████████ ████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
trying to show ████ ███ ██████████████ ██████████ ██████ ███████████ ███ ██████████████ ████████
The advocate does not accuse the politician of circular reasoning, as (A) suggests. The advocate just shows that a particular implication of the mandatory sentencing law contradicts the politician's conclusion.
b
claiming that the ██████████████ █████████ ████████ █████████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ ██
What "evidence" are we talking about? The claim that
c
arguing that leniency ██ ███ █ █████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ██ █ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ █████████
Recall that the advocate accepts the politician's premise that some judges give more lenient sentences. The advocate never disagrees that leniency is an individual trait, and that's enough to eliminate (C).
More broadly, the advocate's argument just isn't focused on the idea of leniency. The advocate shows that as a result of the mandatory sentencing law, juries now return inaccurate verdicts when the mandatory sentence would be unfair. The advocate isn't concerned with re-defining leniency.
d
arguing that an ████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████████ ██████████
What "certain legislation" are we talking about? The
e
charging that the ██████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ █ ████████ ████████
As with (C), (E) ignores that the advocate accepts the politician's premise that judges were giving variable sentences before this new law. The advocate doesn't claim that the politician exaggerated, and doesn't raise any other issue with the politician's premise. The advocate instead shows that another implication of this law undermines the justice system's integrity.