PT151 S4 Q17 ExplanationThe position that punishment

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   No Support Provided7% picked this

   It is a statement the argument provides grounds to accept and from which the overall

   This answer is acting like this claim was an Intermediate Conclusion, but there were none of those. It might be tempting to confuse a chain of implications with a chain of reasoning, but this argument essentially works like this: The position that "A is true" is absurd. After all, A implies B. If then B, then C. But C would make us hit a brick wall. Consider an analogous argument: The position that Bruno Mars had a show the night of the 1st Moon Landing is absurd. It implies that Bruno Mars was performing back in 1969 when the first landing occurred. If Bruno was performing in 1969, then he would be at least 60 years old by now. But no one in their 60's could dance the way that Bruno Mars currently dances. Did this argument provide grounds to accept that "Bruno Mars was performing back in 1969"? No. The author does not think that was true; she's not trying to support it. Instead, she's saying, "if it were true, then these crazy ideas would follow".

   7%
2. B

   Opposite Last Word9% picked this

   It is a statement inferred from a position the argument seeks

   It is a statement inferred from the position the argument seeks to undermine. The first sentence says Position X is unsustainable. The second sentence says that Position X implies that remote considerations like previous offenses are relevant. So the 2nd sentence is being inferred / implied / derived from the position, but the argument isn't defending that position. It's attacking that position.

   9%
3. C

   Wrong Role1% picked this

   It is the overall conclusion in favor of which the argument

   The first sentence is the overall conclusion. The remaining three sentences work together to help demonstrate the first sentence, that Position X is unsustainable.

   1%
4. D

   Correct66% picked this

   It is an allegedly untenable consequence of a view rejected in the

   Why this is right

   Is there a view rejected in the argument's conclusion? Sure, the first sentence says Position X is unsustainable. T Is the 2nd sentence a consequence of that view, of Position X? Yes, the second sentence says that Position X implies that remote considerations like previous offenses are relevant. So the 2nd sentence is being inferred / implied / derived from that position. It is entailed by that position. It follows from that position. It is a logical consequence of that position. Is our author saying that this 2nd sentence is untenable? Yes, our author alleges that this consequence would make it ultimately impossible to apply the proportionality principle, so the author is alleging that the 2nd sentence renders our plan to make punishment be proportional to the seriousness of the offense an impossible, untenable endeavor.

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

   66%
5. E

   No Intermediate Conclusions18% picked this

   It is a premise offered in support of an intermediate conclusion

   This answer is acting like the argument contained an Intermediate Conclusion, but it did not. It might be tempting to confuse its chain of implications with a chain of reasoning, but this argument essentially works like this: The position that "A is true" is absurd. After all, A implies B. If then B, then C. But C would make us hit a brick wall. Consider an analogous argument: The position that Bruno Mars had a show the night of the 1st Moon Landing is absurd. It implies that Bruno Mars was performing back in 1969 when the first landing occurred. If Bruno was performing in 1969, then he would be at least 60 years old by now. But no one in their 60's could dance the way that Bruno Mars currently dances. Did this argument say that "Bruno Mars was performing back in 1969" in order to support that Bruno is at least 60 years old by now? No, the author does not actually think Bruno is 60. He's pacing through logical implications to prove that these are bad ideas, not legitimate supported ones.

   18%