Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 31 Oct 2014, 00:25

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

To hold criminals for their crimes involves a failure

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 65
Location: Australia
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

To hold criminals for their crimes involves a failure [#permalink] New post 04 May 2004, 18:14
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (02:57) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
Here's another one: :shock: happy solving...answer will follow soon.

To hold criminals for their crimes involves a failure to recognise 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 critism on the grounds that:

A.it exploits an ambiguity in the term "environment" by treating 2 different meanings of the word as thought they were equivalent.

B.it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable andactions that are socially unacceptable.

C.the way it distinguishes criminals from crimes implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having commited a crime.

D.its conclusion is a generalisation 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.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 656
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 04 May 2004, 18:22
I love Aussie CRs :twisted:
Where did you get these CRs? They are so ambigious and twisted :barbarian

That being said, I would go for E
If correct, explanation will follow.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 24

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 04 May 2004, 18:25
This is an LSAT question right?
I will go for E. If the law abiding majority, whose actions and nothing else, should be held responsible for criminals' crimes, then it directly contradicts the principle that all actions are ultimately products of the environment that forged the agent's character. It means that those very law abiding people should not be responsible for their action for it is their environment which again forged their character.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 65
Location: Australia
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 04 May 2004, 18:43
Paul, you're right this is an LSAT Q. After practising from different GMAT Qs, I didnt see many of these types but there are a few of them that I think are categorised as med-high diffcty Qs.

I also think that posting more difficult Qs is better, as most of us, if not all, here are aiming at 700+ gmat right? So, we should EXPECT and get ourselves familiar to solve difficult Q's.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 24

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 04 May 2004, 18:49
You are absolutely right and I strongly encourage the use of LSAT-type questions for the verbal part. I myself use it and posted a good string of LSAT questions back a month or so ago.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 676 [0], given: 781

 [#permalink] New post 04 May 2004, 19:02
aonie wrote:
Paul, you're right this is an LSAT Q. After practising from different GMAT Qs, I didnt see many of these types but there are a few of them that I think are categorised as med-high diffcty Qs.

I also think that posting more difficult Qs is better, as most of us, if not all, here are aiming at 700+ gmat right? So, we should EXPECT and get ourselves familiar to solve difficult Q's.


I agree . Only the quality of questions matter. what we want to learn is the art of analyzing arguments.

Sincerely
Praet
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 402
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 05 May 2004, 05:07
Somehow I don't agree with (E).
The argument says: Criminal comits a crime because of the environment created by law abiding people. So criminal should not be held responsible for that, it is the environment responsible for his actions.

So, I don't see a contradiction here(Assuming I interpreted the stem properly! correct me if I am wrond here)

Looking at the usage of environment in the argument, (A) looks better choice.


Any suggestions! (I know finally I will be at the wrong end, but I won't to understand what is wrong with my reasoning?).
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 1
Location: France
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 05 May 2004, 06:16
I would opt for B, seems the right choice to me...

Correct ?
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 24

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 05 May 2004, 07:17
mba, there is no ambiguity with the word environment here. It really means the social surrounding of the concerned individual.

The stem says that criminals should not be blamed for their crime since it is their environment which formed their character. This basically means that it is the environment which should be blamed for any individual's behaviour.

Yet, the conclusion says that the law abiding majority, and nothing else, which should be blamed for criminals' behavior. Well, this directly contradicts the principle that it is the environment which should be blamed for any individual's behaviours.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 24

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 05 May 2004, 07:18
al06 wrote:
I would opt for B, seems the right choice to me...

Correct ?

Please substantiate your answer
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 345
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Flaw in reasoning [#permalink] New post 05 May 2004, 12:07
aonie wrote:
Here's another one: :shock: happy solving...answer will follow soon.

To hold criminals for their crimes involves a failure to recognise 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 critism on the grounds that:

A.it exploits an ambiguity in the term "environment" by treating 2 different meanings of the word as thought they were equivalent.

B.it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable andactions that are socially unacceptable.

C.the way it distinguishes criminals from crimes implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having commited a crime.

D.its conclusion is a generalisation 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.
Paul wrote:
mba, there is no ambiguity with the word environment here. It really means the social surrounding of the concerned individual.

The stem says that criminals should not be blamed for their crime since it is their environment which formed their character. This basically means that it is the environment which should be blamed for any individual's behaviour.

Yet, the conclusion says that the law abiding majority, and nothing else, which should be blamed for criminals' behavior. Well, this directly contradicts the principle that it is the environment which should be blamed for any individual's behaviours.


Lets dissect this to pieces, shall we?

INTRO( also a conclusion enforcer): Drivers of the actions, not its product is responsible.
("To hold criminals for their crimes involves a failure to recognise that criminal actions, like all actions are ultimately products of the environment that forged the agent's character.")

Assumptions:

Criminals actions are product of conducive environment

Conducive environment is product of Majority of the people

Majority of the people are law abiding

Conclusion:

Therefore, it is law abiding people whose actions and nothing else, make them alone truly responsible for crime.

E fared better compared to others, But still has some probs. Evironment should also be blamed doesn't fare well with the " drivers of actions not its products be balmed' : the core argument of this passage. And environment as asserted is just mere a "product".
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 65
Location: Australia
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 06 May 2004, 19:03
Hi all...

Great job, OA answer is E.
CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 676 [0], given: 781

 [#permalink] New post 06 May 2004, 19:49
:-D a discussion is truly the best way to learn
  [#permalink] 06 May 2004, 19:49
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
To hold criminals responsible for thier crimes involves a joemama142000 11 08 Jan 2010, 17:35
To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a durgesh79 13 03 Jul 2008, 09:59
To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a jdtomatito 5 01 Oct 2005, 04:53
To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a AJB77 6 24 Jul 2005, 13:41
To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a cybera 6 11 Jul 2005, 18:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by

To hold criminals for their crimes involves a failure

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.