The quantity and type of pollution

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct89% picked this

   The more severe the penalty for an infraction is, the more certain one must be of guilt of a party before being justified in

   Why this is right

   This is more of a Strengthener than a Conclusion-Prover, but the question stem only needs it to Strengthen. We know that the penalty for polluting is very severe, so according to this answer choice we need to be lots more certain that someone is guilty before we're justified in imposing a penalty. It's easy to like this answer, since it's 1/2 premise language (severe penalty) and 1/2 conclusion language (not sufficiently certain to justify imposing penalty). But it might be harder to like than a classic Conditional principle, because it's phrased in that Volume Knob form (the more X, the more Y).

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

   89%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   Penalties for crimes should be severe enough to deter people from committing them, but not so severe as to undermine

   This is a principle that would help us judge how severe we should make a penalty, when we're designing it, or evaluating it. We want a principle that helps us judge whether or not we should impose a penalty that already exists. We're not evaluating whether the penalty is the "right" level of severity. We're evaluating whether a penalty that is severe should be imposed on a plausible suspect (the auto repair shop).

   2%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

   The severity of the penalty imposed for an infraction should be proportional to the harm

   This is a principle that would help us judge how severe we should make a penalty, when we're designing it, or if we were thinking about changing it or getting rid of it. We want a principle that helps us judge whether or not we should impose a penalty that already exists. This principle would help someone conclude, depending on how much harm is caused by polluting a river, how severe the penalty should be for polluting a river. This principle doesn't help us justify an argument saying, "don't impose the severe penalty on someone who's simply a plausible suspect".

   2%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   The more severe the penalty for an offense is, the less likely it is that someone will come forward and

   This gets the Premise consideration correct (how severe a penalty is), but doesn't give us language relating to the judgment rendered in the conclusion. Our author isn't concluding, "Thus, there probably won't be any perpetrator who admits responsibility". This answer would help justify that conclusion. Our conclusion is, "If there isn't a confession or more evidence, don't impose penalty."

   4%
5. E

   Unrelated to Goal4% picked this

   The severity of the penalty for an offense should not be so great that one can never be sufficiently certain of guilt

   This is a principle that would help us judge how severe we should make a penalty, when we're designing it, or if we're considering amending the penalty. We want a principle that helps us judge whether or not we should impose a penalty that already exists. Only choice (A) was actually a principle about whether or not we should impose a penalty, which is what the conclusion is talking about.

   4%