PT158 S2 Q9 ExplanationScholar: The purpose of a law

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   It is offered in support of the implicit conclusion that a legal system needs a significant

   This answer says the statement supports an implicit conclusion about a "significant police force." The argument never mentions police, enforcement resources, or staffing. The argument's actual conclusion is that a successful legal system prohibits only a few intolerable behaviors. While one might extrapolate that effective enforcement requires resources, that inference is not made in this argument. The statement about deterrence supports the explicit conclusion about limiting prohibitions, not an unstated conclusion about police staffing.

   5%
2. B

   Wrong Role7% picked this

   It is the conclusion of the

   The conclusion of the argument is that a successful legal system prohibits only a few behaviors that citizens find absolutely intolerable. The statement in question — that law's purpose is deterrence through punishment — is not this conclusion. It is the starting premise from which the argument builds. The conclusion is introduced by "therefore" at the end of the argument. The deterrence statement appears at the very beginning and provides the foundational definition of law's purpose. The argument uses this definition, combines it with additional premises about belief and probability, and arrives at the conclusion about limiting prohibitions. The statement is a building block, not the destination.

   7%
3. C

   Correct62% picked this

   It is a premise of the

   Why this is right

   The statement that "the purpose of a law is to deter certain actions by threatening to punish those performing the actions" is a premise of the argument. It is the first claim in a chain of reasoning that leads to the conclusion. The argument does not derive this statement from other claims — it is asserted as a foundational principle. From this premise, the argument builds: deterrence requires belief in likely punishment, that belief erodes as prohibitions multiply, therefore successful systems must limit their prohibitions. The deterrence statement is not the conclusion (which appears after "therefore"), not an intermediate conclusion (it is not derived from other premises), and not a view being challenged (the scholar endorses it as the foundation of the argument).

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

   62%
4. D

   Wrong Role11% picked this

   It is an intermediate

   An intermediate conclusion is a claim that is both derived from premises AND used to support a further conclusion — it serves as both a conclusion of earlier reasoning and a premise for later reasoning. The deterrence statement is not derived from any other claims in the argument. It is simply asserted as a starting point. No prior reasoning leads to it; it is the first claim made. Because it has no premises supporting it within the argument, it cannot be an intermediate conclusion. It is a straightforward premise — a building block offered without prior justification.

   11%
5. E

   Wrong Role14% picked this

   It is the view that the argument as a whole is

   This answer says the statement is a view the argument is designed to discredit. But the scholar endorses this statement — it is the foundation of the argument, not the target of it. The scholar uses the deterrence definition of law to build toward the conclusion about limiting prohibitions. If the scholar were trying to discredit the deterrence view, the argument would need to present evidence or reasoning against it. Instead, the argument accepts the deterrence view and draws implications from it. The argument works with the statement, not against it.

   14%