To hold criminals responsible for thier crimes involves a

Question

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

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

a) it expolits an ambiguity in the term "environment" by treating 2 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

donisback · Answer

IMO it's D

a) it expolits an ambiguity in the term "environment" by treating 2 different meanings of the word as though they were equivalent Environment has the same meaning in the two contexts. So it cannot be the answer.  
b) it fails to distinguish between actions that are socially acceptable and actions that are socially unacceptable
  Nothing has been said about socially unacceptable actions  
c) the way it distinguishes criminals from crimes implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having committed a crime   Irrelevant  
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
  The conclusion does not contradict the implicit principle

ichha148 · Answer

I will go with B

Conclusion says :-Therefore, it is law-abiding people whose actions, and nothing else, make them alone truely responsible for crime.

If author clearly describes what is the difference between socially acceptable and actions that are socially unacceptable only then law-abiding citizen can be considered responsible

Swapnilvpatil · Answer

I think Answer is 'B'

mojorising800 · Answer

IMO its B
OA plz!

janani · Answer

I think it's E
 It is not criminals but people in the law-abiding majority who by their actioins  do most  to create and maintain this environment

In the above sentence, it says the law-abiding people do the most harm. That means it doesn't explain all criminal conduct.  
After this sentence, the statemtent concludes that "nothing else" accounts for criminal conduct.

Hence I vote E

DestinyChild · Answer

E for me; based on the contradicting conclusion.

joemama142000 · Answer

OA is E

shalva · Answer

I liked this one. Interesting question

BarneyStinson · Answer

Great question, truly 750 level. The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism - the question stem itself says there's a paradox between one of the premises and the conclusion, and option E is just that, and still we tend to disregard it.

dmetla · Answer

interesting question

noboru · Answer

This is an LSAT question from October 1996...

To hold criminals responsible for thier crimes involves a

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