FeiFei-44

lip00ff2002

Q44 (我的答案猜对了，但题干还没有搞懂，是什么意思呢)

Legal theories: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people. The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration, for lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one's actions, or from the free choice of the lawbreaker. Obviously mere ignorance cannot justify incarcerating a lawbreaker, and even free choice on the part of the lawbreaker fails to justify incarceration, for free choice proceeds from the desires of an agent, and the desires of an agent are products of genetics and environmental conditioning, neither of which is controlled by the agent. The claim in the first sentence of the passage plays which one of the following roles in the arguement

A. it is offered as a premise that helps to show that no actions are under the control of the agent

B. it is offered as background information necessary to understand the argument

C it is offered as the main conclusion that the argument is designed to establish

D. It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that protection of life and property is more important than retribution for past illegal acts

E. it is offered as evidence for the stated claim that lawbreaking proceeds from either ignorance of the law, or ignorance of the effects of one's actions, or free choice

arundhati

第一句为文章结论。它说把所有触犯法律的人监禁起来是不合理的。

然后进一步阐述为什么不合理。触犯法律有三种情况，对法律的无知，或对某人行为的无知，或是犯法者的自由选择。犯法者的无知不能成为监禁他的理由，同样犯法者的自由选择也不能。进而说明原因。

所以正如答案C所说，第一句为结论。

singdeath

而且每一句的论述对象范围也逐句缩小。第一句说的是所有监禁的人other than...不合理，第二句是因为犯法而被监禁的人不合理，第三句是逐个说因为ignorance和free choice而犯法的人不应该被监禁