Newspaper editorial: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the gover

Hi Nitin,

Let's struggle on this together

Even though you have rejected option A, your reason is still not correct. So, there's more to learn here

Before we look at option A again, let's look at the simple examples of negation that I asked you to attempt:

Statement: He is unlikely to kill anyone.

To negate any statement, you need to first understand the meaning of the statement. Reliance on rules (negating the verb etc) is not always helpful. What is the meaning of the above statement?

It means that there is very less chance that he will kill anyone. So, it is a milder version of saying that He will not kill anyone. Right?

Now, what will be the negation of this statement?

Negation means saying something exactly opposite of the original statement.

The negation would be a milder version of "He will kill someone" (If he kills anyone, the original statement falls apart. He need not kill everybody to breakdown the original statement. Even if he kills one person, the original statement falls apart)

Now, the negation would be "He is likely to kill someone".

Now, what if you just said "He is likely to kill anyone". What would it mean?

It would mean that any person who comes in front of him is likely to be killed. In other words, it means that he is likely to kill everyone. But you know now that this is not what we require in the negation.

Hope this part is clear! If not, spend some more time on it before moving forward.

Coming to option A now,

The negation of option A would be:

Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is likely to deter some people from crimes that they might otherwise have committed.

Now, here you need to clearly understand the original meaning of option A. Only then would you be able to see how exactly the above negation is arrived at.

What does this negated statement means?

It means that "not taking college-level courses" is actually good for some people as it deters them from crime. Right?

Now, it does weaken the conclusion, which indicates that we should offer college-level courses.

Right?

But how should negation of an assumption affect the conclusion?

Should it weaken the conclusion or break it down?

The answer is that the negation of an assumption should break-down the conclusion. In other words, once the assumption is negated, we should not have any belief in the validity of the conclusion.

Now, this is not the case here. Agreed that option A indicates that not taking college level course will help some people but what about the rest (or even majority) of the people? If the college level courses help majority of the people, then we should have them even if some people are benefited from not having them. (So, you can see the conclusion can still hold even after negating option A)

Now coming to option C,

We are both saying the same thing, Nitin

I am saying they are likely to commit fewer crimes.

You are saying they are less likely to commit crimes.

See there is a word "fewer" in my sentence, which is missing in yours.

Both mean the same.

I hope it helps!

Please let me know if you still have questions

Thanks,
Chiranjeev