LSAT-24-1-22

lilyzy

22.   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）

(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based

这题请NN分析一下.

lawyer_1

principle: 应该为自己做的事responsible

结论：那些罪犯不该为自己做的事responsible。

hedonism555

Principle of earlier part:  living environment causes criminal actions and no one alone should be held responsible for criminal actions.

Conclusion:  law abiding people alone are responsible for crime.  

The paraphrase of this argument is that,  if everybody is responsible for sth, then nobody alone should be responsible for it.

So, the conclusion displays a contradiction that law-abidding people's actions are held responsible for sth that should be attributed to everybody in the shared living evironment under which law-abidding people's actions are likewise influenced by others.

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-2-4 19:58:24编辑过]

lilyzy

谢谢两位班主, 我明白了.