Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life

@GMATNinja:-How do u identify what is the main conclusion? I somehow chose C as the answer thinking it attacks the first statement, which is a conclusion.

Manat wrote:

@GMATNinja:-How do u identify what is the main conclusion? I somehow chose C as the answer thinking it attacks the first statement, which is a conclusion.

Manat You need to remember that the individual "speaking" is the criminologist. (C) is the conclusion of the legislator, not the criminologist...therefore, it can't be the conclusion.

Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.

Notes

(Opposite View) L: if 3rd serious crime —> mandate life sentence
(Opposing View) L: life sentence take ppl off streets —> lower crime
(Premise) C: old people unlikely commit 3rd crime
(Premise) C: younger commit more crime
(Conclusion) C: filling prison w/ old(er) people will NOT lower crime

Analysis & Pre-Think
There’s actually two conclusions here but only one is the criminologist’s conclusion. The criminologist first shares some context regarding what the legislators’ policy advocates, which is to require that all individual who commit a third senior crime to be sentenced for life. He then tells us the legislators (falsely) conclude that their policy would lower crime.

After sharing the opposing viewpoint, the criminologist then disagrees (“what this reasoning overlooks”) with the aforementioned conclusion. His disagreement is supported by his claim that people who already served two sentences are highly unlikely to commit another crime. Because of this claim, he concludes that the legislators are wrong (“opposite of the desired effect”) because “younger criminals […tend to] commit” more serious crimes.

So from our notes above, we can see that the first bold-face is the legislator’s conclusion and the second is the criminologist’s conclusion. When we think about these two statements in relation to each other, we can note that they are opposing view points. Let’s see what our choices give us.

In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
Ah, the classic “half-right” answer. The first half is gold. The second half says that the criminologist’s conclusion is a “claim” (which it is….?) but then says the “claim” is advanced to support “that conclusion.” In this case, “that” refers to the legislator’s conclusion. The criminologist DOES NOT support the legislator’s at all.

B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
Here we go! This matches our pre-thinking process.

C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
No, the first is the legislator’s conclusion.

D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
Same as (C).

E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
Is the first a generalization under consideration? Hm, I guess. How about the second? The second definitely does not point out a group of “exceptional cases”….

First, determine in your mind, what two statements states. Even before we read the options, we can safely assume that both are contradicting and opposing each other. Now read the options...

A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
Second does not support the first in any way.

B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
Correct. Both are conclusions of two different arguments. First, one is being refuted by the argument as a whole and thus leaving the second as the main conclusion.

C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
Tempting- The option suggests that the statements are opposing each other, but the first one is not the main conclusion. In fact, the second argument is derived from where the first ended, so it (the first) cannot be the main conclusion itself.

D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
Second is not a prediction. It gives proper resoning why it stands againsts the first one.

E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
The first could be a genralization (may be, if option B was not given), but the second is not pointing out exceptional cases, it in fact gives opposing generalisation.

Let’s look at the details of the argument

Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime.
Legislators' conclusion-
They argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently.

Criminologist’s argument
However, people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime.
Criminologist’s conclusion/opinion-
Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect,
Because (reason/premise)- it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.


Let’s look at the options

A. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.

Even though the first part of this option is correct, the second part is incorrect. It is not a claim in support of that conclusion. The second is the conclusion of the criminologist. Eliminate A

B. The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

The first BF is the conclusion of the legislators that the criminologist refutes. The second BF is the criminologist’s opinion/ conclusion.
This is the right answer.

C. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.

The first is not the main conclusion of the argument. It is the second BF. Eliminate C

D. The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.

The first is not the main conclusion of the argument. It is the second BF. Eliminate D

E. The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.

The first is not a generalization. It is the legislators’ opinion or conclusion. Eliminate E

Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.