To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to

Question

To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to recognize that criminal actions, like all actions, are ultimately products of the environment that forged the agent’s character. It is not criminals but people in the law-abiding majority who by their actions do most to create and maintain this environment. Therefore, it is law-abiding people whose actions, and nothing else, make them alone truly responsible for crime.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

(A) it exploits an ambiguity in the term “environment” by treating two different meanings of the word as though they were equivalent

(B) it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and actions that are socially unacceptable

(C) the way it distinguishes criminals from crimes implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having committed a crime

(D) its conclusion is a generalization of statistical evidence drawn from only a small minority of the population

(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based

zs2 · Accepted Answer

The argument says that it the fault of the Law-abiders alone and not the criminals for the crime that criminals have done. Last line says that actions of law-abiders make them responsible for the crime done by sb else. Reason behind this is that the environment defines the actions of the criminals. So they are not at fault.

Very strange in the world there are two set of people -- Criminals and Law abiders , environment is same for both. So how can we say that Law abiders are responsible negatively for their actions and criminals have no responsibility for the actions/crimes that they have done.

Weakener- Any statement which can highlight this flaw can be the answer.

(A) it exploits an ambiguity in the term “environment” by treating two different meanings of the word as though they were equivalent - Out of scope

(B) it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and actions that are socially unacceptable- No difference is talked about in actions

(C) the way it distinguishes criminals from crimes implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having committed a crime- criminal is called a criminal because of the crime he has done , out of scope

(D) its conclusion is a generalization of statistical evidence drawn from only a small minority of the population- no stats is given , out of scope

(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based - yes this is in line with our prethinking. Principle is not being implemented consistently. Different stands have been taken for Law abiders ( principle used in conclusion) and criminals (implicit principle in earlier part).

warrior1991 · Answer

generis  Looking forward to your detailed explanation on this one?

I am not able to figure out but IMO E may be the correct one among all.

adstudy · Answer

I think the gap here is that the prompt is initially pointing that criminals are created by the actions of the citizens, who are themselves living in the same environment and then in the very next line the prompt calls these citizens 'law - abiding' as well.
Hence if they are following the law to the letter, how can they create an anti-law entity.
If a criminal, or an anti law entity, is getting added to the system by citizens who are following the law, then it is indirectly concluding that the law itself is introducing the anti-law and not the citizens.
Hence IMO E should be the answer.

robu1 · Answer

To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to recognize that criminal actions, like all actions, are ultimately products of the environment that forged the agent’s character. It is not criminals but people in the law-abiding majority who by their actions do most to create and maintain this environment. Therefore, it is law-abiding people whose actions, and nothing else, make them alone truly responsible for crime.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

(A) it exploits an ambiguity in the term “environment” by treating two different meanings of the word as though they were equivalent

(B) it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and actions that are socially unacceptable

(C) the way it distinguishes criminals from crimes implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having committed a crime

(D) its conclusion is a generalization of statistical evidence drawn from only a small minority of the population
 
(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based[/quote

It’s a flaw type question. Hence fact test must pass for options.
using POE, in option A , there is no ambiguity. 
In option B , there is no mention of social acceptability in stimulus. Hence wrong. 
Option C talks about distinguishing how criminal becomes . Also implicitly is wrong as per stimuli. The conclusion explicitly states who is responsible for making them criminal. Hence option C is wrong.
 There is no statistical evidence mention in stimuli so option D is wrong.

That make option E correct choice.

But I still wanders how is E the correct.

AnirudhaS · Answer

Criminal NOT responsible for their actions..
Why?
Because their actions are product of good citizen's actions.

But why can't we think on the following lines? -
Have we considered why good citizen's actions are like they are? Probably influenced by the very environment - to prevent criminals from harming them for example?

E says exactly that - 
(E) its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based

PTanjiro · Answer

The premise states that the environment is responsible for the actions of the criminals.
Using the same logic in case of a law abiding environment, there should not be any criminals.

Thus, this is the point where we can see a contradiction.

To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to

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

To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves a failure to

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