To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to recognize that criminal actions, like all actions, are ultimately products of the environment that forged the agent's character. It is not criminals but people in the law-abiding majority who by their actions do most to create and maintain this environment. Therefore, it is law-abiding people whose actions, and nothing else, make them alone truly responsible for crime.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that
(A) it exploits an ambiguity in the term "environment" by treating two different meanings of the word as though they were equivalent B it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and actions that are socially unacceptable C the way it distinguishes criminals from crimes implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having committed a crime D its conclusion is a generalization of statistical evidence drawn from only a small minority of the population E its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based
like all actions, are ultimately products of the environment that forged the agent's character 道理很简单了，社会上有那么多好的现象这个罪犯怎么不去学呢，而单单是在犯罪以后把责任归到社会的头上。社会给每一个人的机会是一样的，每个人可以学好也可以学坏， law-abiding majority who by their actions do most to create and maintain this environment 这个环境是个守法的环境，如果说是影响的话就该没有任何罪犯了，可是还是有坏人，那么他们就应该为自己的行为负责，该杀！呵呵
我觉得这样理解： 一开头就说to hold criminals responsible for their crimes involve..说的是要使criminal为自己的crime负责，这其中有如下问题应该承认但实际上没承认（failure to recognize）...但最后却推理成了law-abiding people are responsible for the crimes.
To hold criminals responsible for their crimes implies the failure to recognize that it is law-abiding people who create and maintain the environment where the crimes happen，but it cannot be thus concluded that it is the law-abiding people who should be responsible for crimes committed by criminals.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-11-17 00:56:00
