Editorial: The threat of harsh

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: morality3% picked this

   Legal penalties do not determine the morality of

   At no point in the argument did we discuss morality, so we have no idea what the author thinks about this.

   3%
2. B

   Correct71% picked this

   At least some actions that involve ignoring the welfare of others

   Why this is right

   This connects the language in the premise "more severe penalties --> more transgressions" to the language in the conclusion, "more severe penalties --> more ignoring welfare of others". We love weak language on Necessary Assumption, because when you negate weak language you get a strong idea, and our task on Nec Assump is "which answer, when negated, most weakens". When we negate "some" (which means "one or more"), we get "none" (which means "zero"). So the negation of this answer says, "ZERO actions that involve ignoring the welfare of others are transgressions." They NEVER overlap. You could do something that increases the likelihood of transgressions and that wouldn't mean any increase in ignoring the welfare of others, since transgressions are never actions ignoring the welfare of others.

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

   71%
3. C

   Too Strong: tend to18% picked this

   People who are concerned about threats to their own well-being tend to be less concerned about

   Potential criminals who feel the threat of a legal penalty are probably "concerned about a threat to their own well-being". But they are just one slice of that crowd. I'm not going to be committing any crimes, but I'm still concerned about a threat to my well-being (coronavirus, among other things). It's pretty safe to say that almost everyone is concerned about threats to their well-being. Is the author assuming that people tend to be more concerned about themselves than about the welfare of others? That's way too broad. It goes well beyond the scope of this argument, which is only about the effect raising legal penalties will have on people ignoring the welfare of others.

   18%
4. D

   Out of Scope3% picked this

   The threat of harsh punishment deters people from committing transgressions only if this threat is at

   Out of Scope: Threat vs. carried out Too Strong: only if This conditional answer accuses the author of having made this argument move: Threat is never ? threat of harsh punishment carried out doesn't deter transgressions Our author never made that move.

   3%
5. E

   Too Strong: everyone5% picked this

   Everyone has at least some tendency to feel guilt or shame for committing

   Our author doesn't have to assume that every single person in existence has at least some tendency to feel guilt or shame for committing bad transgressions. It doesn't hurt her argument if some sociopath named Gus feels no guilt or shame for his transgressions. The conclusion is so weakly worded, "increasing severity may increase tendency to ignore welfare", that the author is certainly not committing herself to any strong ideas.

   5%