It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 16:50

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# To hold criminals for their crimes involves a failure

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
Manager
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 64

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Location: Australia
To hold criminals for their crimes involves a failure [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2004, 19:14
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:57) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Here's another one: 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.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 651

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 May 2004, 19:22
I love Aussie CRs
Where did you get these CRs? They are so ambigious and twisted

That being said, I would go for E
If correct, explanation will follow.

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4285

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 May 2004, 19:25
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

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 64

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Location: Australia

### Show Tags

04 May 2004, 19:43
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.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4285

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 May 2004, 19:49
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

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3454

Kudos [?]: 919 [0], given: 781

### Show Tags

04 May 2004, 20:02
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

Kudos [?]: 919 [0], given: 781

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 400

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

05 May 2004, 06:07
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?).

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 1

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

Location: France

### Show Tags

05 May 2004, 07:16
I would opt for B, seems the right choice to me...

Correct ?

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

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4285

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 May 2004, 08:17
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

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4285

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 May 2004, 08:18
al06 wrote:
I would opt for B, seems the right choice to me...

Correct ?

_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 344

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Flaw in reasoning [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2004, 13:07
aonie wrote:
Here's another one: 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".

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 64

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Location: Australia

### Show Tags

06 May 2004, 20:03
Hi all...

Great job, OA answer is E.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3454

Kudos [?]: 919 [0], given: 781

### Show Tags

06 May 2004, 20:49
a discussion is truly the best way to learn

Kudos [?]: 919 [0], given: 781

06 May 2004, 20:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# To hold criminals for their crimes involves a failure

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne 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®.