gwd-9-30

Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.

In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.

B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.

D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.

E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.

答案选b，没有问题。

谁能不能翻译一下题目，没看明白。谢谢！

E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration

in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that

generalization does not apply.

有谁知道E是什么意思呀? 怎么这么怪异??

thanks NN, clear now/

Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.

我怎么觉得 main conclusion 是上面 highlight 出来的部分呢？
请NN帮忙分析一下到底哪部分是全文结论。

MM没理解那句话。

Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime.

黄色高亮的是一个定从，体会一下

main conclusin就是第二个黑脸，把那个opposit of the edsired effect paraphrase一下就可以了

I have the same question as billion.

I think the advocation by some legislators is one view. The argument "they argue" gives the supported reasoning. Then the argument said that the reasoning is not right. I think this sentence "this reasoning overlooks is that ..." is the conclusion that objects the previous view. but the sentence "Filling..."  is just the supported reason again.