Criminologist: Increasing the current prison term for robbery will

adkikani, you did better than you think you did. LR is hard. This question challenges twice on the "thinking in negatives" front.

First we have the claim: a STOP measure does NOT stop. The claim creates one level of having to think of "not X."

Then we have the question: which of the following options does NOT support the claim? The question creates a second level of having to think of "not X."

In addition, the options may create doubt about limits. It can be hard to know when you are allowed to think outside the confines of the text and when you must not do so.
Oddly enough, this question contains both cases.

In options A, B, and D, you must stretch a little to make a connection, must infer mental qualities about human beings whom you do not resemble.

Option E, by contrast, is very literal. Most robbers know nothing about length of punishment. Thus, they will know nothing about longer punishment. Option E requires close attention to the the confines of the option.

Think deterrence.

Will harsher punishment stop the crime? The author says no.

Longer prison sentences, she claims, will not deter or discourage people from robbing.

So if these robbers are THRILL seekers, they are risk lovers, and not likely to be deterred by rules.

If anything, an increased risk for a thrill seeker makes the risky behavior more tempting.
Supports the claim. ELIMINATE
Your analysis is spot on.

This option presents us with similar criminals' lack of response to an identical threat, a scenario from which we can infer a similar result.

Embezzlers steal money while wearing white collars instead of face masks. Longer sentences do not discourage embezzlers.
Other money stealers are not likely to be discouraged either.
Supports the claim. ELIMINATE

Yep. 100% correct. "So what" is exactly right.
Whether sentences HAVE decreased in length has nothing to do with whether they SHOULD increase in length in order to change behavior.
KEEP

Belief matters. If people do not believe they will be caught, then they do not believe that they will serve ANY sentence -- not a long one, not a short one.

Threatening a longer sentence does not make them believe they will be caught.

Don't think like a rational person. YOU might be discouraged if you thought the sentence were 30 years instead of 3, but you are imagining they are sensible. They aren't. They believe they will not get caught. Sentences, period, are irrelevant to them.
Supports the claim. ELIMINATE
[/quote]
Let me rewrite, and let's see whether that helps:
Most robbers HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT the AVERAGE SENTENCE [LENGTH] for robbery.

If most robbers have NO IDEA about average sentences, then they will have NO IDEA if those sentence lengths are changed.

This group of clowns does not know about short sentences, medium sentences or long sentences.

These people cannot be discouraged by a threat about which they are clueless. Longer sentences cannot deter people who do not know about such sentences.
Those facts support the claim.
ELIMINATE

*****

You would have figured out (C), I think. Your strong reaction to (C) ("So what?") -- had you on the right track.

All of the options involve state of mind or lack thereof except (C).

The claim itself mentions nothing except deterrence ["no significant effect in discouraging people..."].

That is, the author's claim may not seem to involve states of mind such as belief, ignorance, willfulness, and arrogance.

Deterrence and "discouraging," however, do involve human minds and motivations.
Deterrence is aimed at the human psyche and the human intellect.

In order for people to be deterred, they must be reachable, they must listen, and they must care.
The four groups in A, B, D, and E are outside that population. Increasing prison stays will have "no significant effect in discouraging [them] from committing robbery."

Answer C is utterly, obnoxiously irrelevant.

Hope that helps.