critical thinking help
the passage
"heavy punishments deter criminals. Current penalties for crimes are too lenient and don't deter criminals. Since poison sentences were reduced, crime has increased. Victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished."
I'm struggling to categorise the last sentence " Victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished." because i can see how it could be a conclusion but i can't find a reason as to why it's not.
"heavy punishments deter criminals. Current penalties for crimes are too lenient and don't deter criminals. Since poison sentences were reduced, crime has increased. Victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished."
Spoiler
I'm struggling to categorise the last sentence " Victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished." because i can see how it could be a conclusion but i can't find a reason as to why it's not.
Are you sure that is the whole passage?
Either I am sorry, I didn't exactly understand what you are saying in the post, you didn't make that much sense, and nor did the whole passage to some degree.
Also I assume you mean prison sentence and not poison sentence.
Firstly, I think the flaw in the argument is 'correlation doesn't imply causation', just because prison sentence were reduced doesn't mean that is the reason crime increased. It could be a increase in poverty etc.
Secondly, " Victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished." is not the conclusion because it isn't being backed by the other reasons.
"heavy punishments deter criminals." therefore "victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished." This does not make sense, therefore it is not the conclusion.
Either I am sorry, I didn't exactly understand what you are saying in the post, you didn't make that much sense, and nor did the whole passage to some degree.
Also I assume you mean prison sentence and not poison sentence.
Firstly, I think the flaw in the argument is 'correlation doesn't imply causation', just because prison sentence were reduced doesn't mean that is the reason crime increased. It could be a increase in poverty etc.
Secondly, " Victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished." is not the conclusion because it isn't being backed by the other reasons.
"heavy punishments deter criminals." therefore "victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished." This does not make sense, therefore it is not the conclusion.
Original post by MADMANMALIK
Are you sure that is the whole passage?
Either I am sorry, I didn't exactly understand what you are saying in the post, you didn't make that much sense, and nor did the whole passage to some degree.
Also I assume you mean prison sentence and not poison sentence.
Firstly, I think the flaw in the argument is 'correlation doesn't imply causation', just because prison sentence were reduced doesn't mean that is the reason crime increased. It could be a increase in poverty etc.
Secondly, " Victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished." is not the conclusion because it isn't being backed by the other reasons.
"heavy punishments deter criminals." therefore "victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished." This does not make sense, therefore it is not the conclusion.
Either I am sorry, I didn't exactly understand what you are saying in the post, you didn't make that much sense, and nor did the whole passage to some degree.
Also I assume you mean prison sentence and not poison sentence.
Firstly, I think the flaw in the argument is 'correlation doesn't imply causation', just because prison sentence were reduced doesn't mean that is the reason crime increased. It could be a increase in poverty etc.
Secondly, " Victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished." is not the conclusion because it isn't being backed by the other reasons.
"heavy punishments deter criminals." therefore "victims need to see that perpetrators of crimes are punished." This does not make sense, therefore it is not the conclusion.
poison sentences must've been a typo in the book so it confused me and yeah that was the whole passage
okay thank you that makes sense
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- English Literature A level Feminist Critical Theory
- English Literature Degree
- A Level English Literature NEA
- how to write critically for essays?
- OCR A Level English Lit... how do I get good?! (yr13)
- jurisprudence help
- How do you get a higher mark in a higher English critical essay?
- SQA Nat 5 English - Critical Reading - 7th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- What do you need to and not need to memorise for Research Methods in psych?
- Am I able to apply for a good uni? Will I be able to raise my grades?
- English Literature - NEA coursework
- Resources for A-level English Lit OCR?
- What is Student life Like ?
- SQA Higher English
- 9 in English Literature???
- Any advice for highers?. I wasn’t great at national 5s I want to achieve As this year
- how to revise for english lit a-level
- Procrastination help
- What does the UOL consider to be an 'academic'/'facilitating' A-Level?
- What books can I compare for my English Literature coursework?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]
