Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S2 · Q22 To hold criminals responsible for

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to recognize that criminal actions, like all actions, are ultimately products of the environment that forged the agent’s character.

Conclusion

Law-abiding people's actions alone are truly responsible for crime.

Evidence

Criminal actions, like all actions, are ultimately product of the environment that shaped the agent's characters.

The law-abiding majority, by their actions, do the most to create and maintain this environment.

Evaluate

This author was woke before woke was a thing: The only crime here, is the Establishment ... mannnn!

She's saying that we shouldn't hold criminals responsible for their actions, since they are just prisoners of their environment (no pun intended). We should really blame the actions of the law-abiding majority that create this environment.

But wait -- how can the author blame anyone for their actions, including the law-abiding people?

I thought we said earlier that we can't blame people for their actions, when it's really just the result of the environment that shapes them. Doesn't this also apply to law-abiding people?

Goal

Look for an answer pointing out the author's Internal Contradiction (one of the famous flaws, but one that very rarely shows up as the real problem).

The author is forgiving one groups actions by saying "we're not accountable for our actions", and then going to on to how law-abiding people accountable for their actions.

22.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

  1. it exploits an ambiguity in

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the famous Equivocation flaw, in which the same word/concept is used in two very different ways (like if we used 'environment' at one point to mean 'one's surroundings / the atmosphere' and at another point to mean 'ecological habitat') This used environment consistently.

    10% picked this

  2. it fails to distinguish between

    Out of Scope: socially acceptable

    If we mean, by "socially unacceptable" actions criminal actions, then the author did not fail to consider them. She mentions that criminal actions, like all other types of actions, are products of environment. If we don't mean "socially unacceptable = criminal", then this concept is simply out of scope. Either way, there's no objection to be made to this argument by speaking to a distinction between socially acceptable and socially unacceptable actions.

    4% picked this

  3. the way it distinguishes criminal

    Too Strong: denies

    When the author says "to hold criminals responsible for their crimes", it sounds like she could easily be accepting the idea that a person becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having committed a crime. Whether or not to hold them responsible for their actions (which is what this author cares about), is a separate issue from whether or not to call them 'criminals".

    26% picked this

  4. its conclusion is a generalization

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the famous Sampling flaw, in which the author relies on a small set of data points to draw a conclusion about a larger set of data points (and the sample she relies on is either too small, not representative, or biased in some self-selecting way). Nothing like that is going on here. There is no sample in this argument.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    its conclusion contradicts an implicit

    Why this is right

    The author starts off by saying that criminals aren't responsible for their crimes, because of the principle that "all actions ultimately products of our environments". But then the author does hold law-abiding people responsible for their actions, even though the same principle should apply to them (since it applies to all actions). The law-abiding people are creating the environment that drives others to criminality. (i.e. "law abiding" CEO's who hoard wealth and export jobs to other countries create the local environment where there isn't enough economic opportunity, which drives desperate people to commit crimes). The author is saying you can't blame the criminal, who is just a product of their environment. But similarly, the CEO is just a product of their environment. All actions are products of the environment that forged the person's character. So you can't hold the CEO responsible for hoarding wealth and exporting jobs. After all, they grew up in an environment that forged their character into one that tries to maximize personal wealth.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    59% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free