To hold criminals responsible for

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw10% picked this

   it exploits an ambiguity in the term “environment” by treating two different meanings of the word as

   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%
2. B

   Out of Scope: socially acceptable4% picked this

   it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and actions that

   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%
3. C

   Too Strong: denies26% picked this

   the way it distinguishes criminal from crimes implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of

   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%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw1% picked this

   its conclusion is a generalization of statistical evidence drawn from only a small minority

   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%
5. E

   Correct58% picked this

   its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the

   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.

   58%