GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 22 Oct 2019, 16:55

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 22 Jun 2017
Posts: 168
Location: Argentina
Schools: HBS, Stanford, Wharton
GMAT 1: 630 Q43 V34
Premium Member Reviews Badge
In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Mar 2019, 16:58
1
4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (01:42) correct 39% (02:11) wrong based on 156 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

_________________
The HARDER you work, the LUCKIER you get.
SC Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT - Pulling Quant and Verbal together
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 237
Location: United States (OH)
Concentration: Technology, Leadership
GPA: 3.6
WE: Sales (Computer Software)
Re: In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2019, 12:27
1
patto wrote:
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.


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.
_________________
Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me.

How to sort questions by Topic, Difficulty, and Source:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/search.php?view=search_tags
Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 22 May 2018
Posts: 49
Re: In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Apr 2019, 01:44
Quote:
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.


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?

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:
(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.

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

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

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

Quote:
(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

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.
_________________
Kudos if you liked my post. Please help me reach next level.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines   [#permalink] 08 Apr 2019, 01:44
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines

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





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