In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines

Question

In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines that mandate a penalty for theft that is identical to the one they have mandated for bribery. Hence, lawmakers in those jurisdictions evidently consider the harm resulting from theft to be equal to the harm resulting from bribery.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

(A) In general, lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm they believe to result from those crimes.
(B) In most cases, lawmakers assess the level of harm resulting from an act in determining whether to make that act illegal.
(C) Often, in response to the unusually great harm resulting from a particular instance of a crime, lawmakers will mandate an increased penalty for that crime.
(D) In most cases, a victim of theft is harmed no more than a victim of bribery is harmed.
(E) If lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm resulting from those crimes, crime in those lawmakers’ jurisdictions will be effectively deterred.

MikeScarn · Answer

Premise : In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines that mandate a penalty for theft that is identical to the one they have mandated for bribery

Conclusion : lawmakers in those jurisdictions evidently consider the harm resulting from theft to be equal to the harm resulting from bribery.

Strengthen

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

(A)  In general, lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm they believe to result from those crimes.

Clearly complements the conclusion. Hold.

(B)  In most cases, lawmakers assess the level of harm resulting from an act in determining whether to make that act illegal.

OOS. Theft and Bribery are both illegal. We are not concerned with how certain actions are deemed illegal.

(C)  Often, in response to the unusually great harm resulting from a particular instance of a crime, lawmakers will mandate an increased penalty for that crime.

Tricky. But this one is talking about  particular instances of a crime . We are concerned with the general penalty guidelines assigned to crimes.

(D)  In most cases, a victim of theft is harmed no more than a victim of bribery is harmed.

Tricky. But we are concerned with how  lawmakers  consider the harm of certain crimes. This does not refer to lawmakers.

(E)  If lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm resulting from those crimes, crime in those lawmakers’ jurisdictions will be effectively deterred.

OOS. We are not concerned with deterring crimes. We just want to strengthen the conclusion, which is that lawmakers consider the harm resulting from theft to be equal to the harm resulting from bribery.

celo700 · Answer

Conclusion: Lawmakers consider - harm resulting from theft = harm resulting from bribery. Why?
Because penalty for bribery is same as penalty for theft.
We should find an option that implies lawmakers believe both harms are similar.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

This gives a general statement of how lawmakers make laws for crimes. Because lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes proportional to the harm, and since the penalties for theft and bribery are same, therefore, lawmakers believe harm caused by both the crimes is also same.
Note the difference between (A) and (D). Both are general statements. But (A) is a general statement in the context of lawmaker and (D) is just a general statement without context.

The goal is to find out lawmakers belief regarding harm caused by bribey and theft not whether they want to make that act illegal based on the level of harm of the act.

Once again, this option is not addressing the point of concern. Way out of scope.

Very tempting. But the reason this option is not right because, this is a general statement. Not judge's belief.

Deterrence of crime is out of scope. This option does not address the similarity of bribery and theft in regard to the harm they cause.

achloes · Answer

A is the correct answer but D is a tempting choice.

One way to look at D would be to consider the key phrase "no more than" in a literal way. It's saying that the upper limit of the harm caused by theft does not EXCEED the harm caused by bribery. So harm from theft could even equal zero. In which case, it would not strengthen the conclusion that the harm from theft and bribery are equal.

unraveled · Answer

In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines that mandate a penalty for theft that is identical to the one they have mandated for bribery. Hence, lawmakers in those jurisdictions evidently consider the harm resulting from theft to be equal to the harm resulting from bribery.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument? 
 (A)  In general, lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes  that are proportional to the harm they believe  to result from those crimes. - CORRECT. 
 (B)  In most cases, lawmakers  assess the level of harm  resulting from an act in determining whether to make that act illegal. - WRONG. Slightly goes in that direction but equality is not established. 
 (C)  Often, in response to the  unusually great harm  resulting from a particular instance of a crime, lawmakers  will mandate an increased penalty  for that crime. - WRONG. Exceptionality discussed but it is not what we are looking for.
 (D)  In most cases, a victim of theft is harmed no more than a victim of bribery is harmed. - WRONG. 
 (E)  If lawmakers mandate penalties for crimes that are proportional to the harm resulting from those crimes, crime in those lawmakers’ jurisdictions will be  effectively deterred . - WRONG. Deterrent is not a concern here.

D is so good that one may not opt for POE but rather choose it. But it does not lets one know what lawmakers perceive/believe, and exactly at this point one must question its integrity. A, on the other hand, offers what lawmakers think/believe. Proportionality equates equality.

Answer A.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards