Bunuel wrote:
Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integrity of our system of justice, for no longer are there two kinds of justice, the kind dispensed by lenient judges and the kind dispensed by severe ones.
Public advocate: But with judges stripped of discretionary powers, there can be no leniency even where it would be appropriate. So juries now sometimes acquit a given defendant solely because the jurors feel that the mandatory sentence would be too harsh. Those juries, then, do not return an accurate verdict on the defendant’s guilt. This is why it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed.
The public advocate responds to the politician’s argument by doing which one of the following?
(A) trying to show that the politician’s conclusion merely paraphrases the politician’s evidence
(B) claiming that the politician’s evidence, properly analyzed, has no bearing on the conclusion the politician derives from it
(C) arguing that leniency is not a trait of individuals but that, rather, it is a property of certain kinds of decisions
(D) arguing that an analysis of the consequences of certain legislation undermines the politician’s conclusion
(E) charging that the politician exaggerated the severity of a problem in order to justify a sweeping solution
Advocate's response:
So now judges no longer have the power to decide whether jail sentences should be given or not to the guilty.Judges do not have a say in this, if Judges were able to decide whether a crime requires jailing or not then petty crimes could not have required jailing.
Since past two years If a defendant is guilty then Jail sentence is mandatory. Even for small crimes if found guilty, then you have to go to jail.This can sometimes be unfair and harsh. So Juries, in cases , where they feel that going to jail would be too harsh, declare the defendant NOT guilty or acquit the defendant.But that is also unfair, the person is guilty but just does not deserve to go to jail for whatever crime he has committed, perhaps his vehicle , was involved in a fender- bender ( minor collision ). So making jail sentences mandatory for all Guilty, is wrong and is affecting , the Juries from delivering accurate judgement. So this mandatory Jail sentences should be removed, and the politicians conclusion for justifying this law is too narrow/inappropriate.
So how does the public advocate reply?
So basically the advocate analyzes the consequences of the legislation and finds the politicians conclusion too narrow/inappropriate . (A) trying to show that the politician’s conclusion merely paraphrases the politician’s evidence : Advocate certainly does not say this.Advocate analyses the consequences.
INCORRECT(B)claiming that the politician’s evidence, properly analyzed, has no bearing on the conclusion the politician derives from it : Not true.Politician presents no evidence.
INCORRECT(C) arguing that leniency is not a trait of individuals but that, rather, it is a property of certain kinds of decisions : Advocate analyses the consequences does not argue on leniency.
INCORRECT(D)arguing that an analysis of the consequences of certain legislation undermines the politician’s conclusion : This is certainly what the Advocate does.
CORRECT(E)charging that the politician exaggerated the severity of a problem in order to justify a sweeping solution : Clearly incorrect, Advocate analyses the consequences does not charge the politician.
INCORRECTAns-D
Hope it's clear.
_________________