In some jurisdictions

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct83% picked this

   In general, lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm they believe to

   Why this is right

   This links the penalty in the sentencing guidelines to the perceived harm resulting from those crimes.

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

   83%
2. B

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   In most cases, lawmakers assess the level of harm resulting from an act in determining whether to

   The legality of an act is not the same as the severity of the mandated penalty for an illegal act.

   1%
3. C

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   Often, in response to the unusually great harm resulting from a particular instance of a crime, lawmakers will mandate an

   This compares the severity of the punishment for committing a crime at one time with another. However, the proper comparison is between the perceived harm resulting from theft and the perceived harm resulting from bribery.

   1%
4. D

   Too Weak12% picked this

   In most cases, a victim of theft is harmed no more than a victim of

   This could strengthen the argument if the harm resulting from theft and the harm resulting from bribery are the same. However, the argument would be undermined if the harm resulting from theft is less than the harm resulting from bribery.

   12%
5. E

   Out of Scope3% picked this

   If lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm resulting from those crimes, crime in those lawmakers'

   Deterring crime is not relevant to the argument.

   3%