QUESTION TEXT: Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate…
QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: It is unreasonable to send anyone to jail if they don’t pose a serious threat to the lives or property of others.
REASONING: Breaking of the law does not justify jail. Lawbreaking either means ignorance or free choice. Mere ignorance cannot justify jailing someone. Even free choice does not justify jailing someone. The desires of the agent determine free choice and these desires come from genetics and environmental conditioning. The agent (person) does not control those factors.
ANALYSIS: You don’t need to understand everything to get this right. It’s enough to figure out that the first sentence is the conclusion. The whole argument is designed to support the idea that we should not jail someone unless they pose a threat.
- Actually the last sentence is the premise that shows that agents do not control their actions.
- No. It is the argument’s conclusion. There isn’t really any background info in this argument.
- CORRECT. Everything else in this argument supports the first statement.
- The argument didn’t even discuss a trade-off between retribution and protection.
- No. The bit about ignorance actually is used to justify the first sentence.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions