Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Dec 1511:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
20 Jan 2020, 08:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
73% (01:50) correct
27%
(02:16)
wrong
based on 128
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
There is something irrational about our system of laws. The criminal law punishes a person more severely for having successfully committed a crime than it does a person who fails in his attempt to commit the same crime—even though the same evil intention is present in both cases. But under the civil law a person who attempts to defraud his victim but is unsuccessful is not required to pay damages.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s argument?
(A) Most persons who are imprisoned for crimes will commit another crime if they are ever released from prison.
(B) A person is morally culpable for his evil thoughts as well as for his evil deeds.
(C) There are more criminal laws on the books than there are civil laws on the books.
(D) A criminal trial is considerably more costly to the state than a civil trial.
(E) The goal of the criminal law is to punish the criminal, but the goal of the civil law is to compensate the victim.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s argument?
(A) Most persons who are imprisoned for crimes will commit another crime if they are ever released from prison.
(B) A person is morally culpable for his evil thoughts as well as for his evil deeds.
(C) There are more criminal laws on the books than there are civil laws on the books.
(D) A criminal trial is considerably more costly to the state than a civil trial.
(E) The goal of the criminal law is to punish the criminal, but the goal of the civil law is to compensate the victim.
Source: Master GMAT
27 Jan 2020, 05:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Let's understand the argument
The authors conclusion can be found right at the beginning "There is something irriational about our system of laws"
He supports this conclusion with the following premises
(1) the criminal law punishes a person more severaly for successfully commiting a crime than it does to a person who fails in his attempt
(2) the civil law however, does not punish a person who fails to defraud his victim. In other words... Only if the person successfully defrauds the victim (and is caught doing so) is punished.
Note the shift of idea.
(I) As per the criminal law, a criminal is punished. But the intensity of the punishment depends on the success/failure of the criminal
(II) As per the Civil law, the person is ONLY punished when he/she successfully defrauds the victim.
Question stem - we have the weaken the conclusion.
• In other words we have the find an answer option that states that "There is NOTHING irrational about our system"
OR
• In other words, the way the Criminal law and civil law treats/punishes the victims is very much rational
Answer choice analysis:-
(A) Most persons who are imprisoned for crimes will commit another crime if they are ever released from prison.
So? The option talks about the criminals imprisoned once the criminal law punsihes them. But our concern is about the criminal law and civil law w.r.t the rationality in the way in which the criminal is punished. What happens after the criminal is punished isn't our concern.
Moreover, this choice only talks about criminal law. It no where talks about the civil law
(B) A person is morally culpable for his evil thoughts as well as for his evil deeds.
If that's the case then whether the criminal has successfully committed the crime or no. Or whether the person has successfully defrauded a vicitim or no... He should be punished EQUALLY.
This choice strengthens the conclusion by proving that the laws ARE irrational
(C) There are more criminal laws on the books than there are civil laws on the books.
Out of scope! The number of criminal laws to civil laws has nothing to do with the rationality of the punishment given to the criminal/defrauders by the law.
(D) A criminal trial is considerably more costly to the state than a civil trial.
Out of scope - again! The cost incurred has no relationship with the rationality of the punishment.
(E) The goal of the criminal law is to punish the criminal, but the goal of the civil law is to compensate the victim
Alas! E is our answer.
Option E shows a distinction between the goal/motive behind the criminal law and the civil law.
Because the goal of the criminal law is to punish the victim, depending on the intensity of the crime, the punishment is passed.
On the other hand, the goal of the civil law is to compensate the vicitim for his loss. So if a person has failed to defraud a vicitm, then there is no loss incurred. And if there is no loss incurred, the law cannot punish the person
Posted from my mobile device
The authors conclusion can be found right at the beginning "There is something irriational about our system of laws"
He supports this conclusion with the following premises
(1) the criminal law punishes a person more severaly for successfully commiting a crime than it does to a person who fails in his attempt
(2) the civil law however, does not punish a person who fails to defraud his victim. In other words... Only if the person successfully defrauds the victim (and is caught doing so) is punished.
Note the shift of idea.
(I) As per the criminal law, a criminal is punished. But the intensity of the punishment depends on the success/failure of the criminal
(II) As per the Civil law, the person is ONLY punished when he/she successfully defrauds the victim.
Question stem - we have the weaken the conclusion.
• In other words we have the find an answer option that states that "There is NOTHING irrational about our system"
OR
• In other words, the way the Criminal law and civil law treats/punishes the victims is very much rational
Answer choice analysis:-
(A) Most persons who are imprisoned for crimes will commit another crime if they are ever released from prison.
So? The option talks about the criminals imprisoned once the criminal law punsihes them. But our concern is about the criminal law and civil law w.r.t the rationality in the way in which the criminal is punished. What happens after the criminal is punished isn't our concern.
Moreover, this choice only talks about criminal law. It no where talks about the civil law
(B) A person is morally culpable for his evil thoughts as well as for his evil deeds.
If that's the case then whether the criminal has successfully committed the crime or no. Or whether the person has successfully defrauded a vicitim or no... He should be punished EQUALLY.
This choice strengthens the conclusion by proving that the laws ARE irrational
(C) There are more criminal laws on the books than there are civil laws on the books.
Out of scope! The number of criminal laws to civil laws has nothing to do with the rationality of the punishment given to the criminal/defrauders by the law.
(D) A criminal trial is considerably more costly to the state than a civil trial.
Out of scope - again! The cost incurred has no relationship with the rationality of the punishment.
(E) The goal of the criminal law is to punish the criminal, but the goal of the civil law is to compensate the victim
Alas! E is our answer.
Option E shows a distinction between the goal/motive behind the criminal law and the civil law.
Because the goal of the criminal law is to punish the victim, depending on the intensity of the crime, the punishment is passed.
On the other hand, the goal of the civil law is to compensate the vicitim for his loss. So if a person has failed to defraud a vicitm, then there is no loss incurred. And if there is no loss incurred, the law cannot punish the person
Posted from my mobile device
Moderators:
