vybzkartel
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
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."

Spoiler:
Show

i understand that the conclusion is that prison sentences should be longer.

the reasoning is current penalities dont deter criminals with evidence "since poison sentences were reduced, crime has increased"

i think a flaw would be that poision sentence is a sentence for a specific type of crime and i dont see how you can apply that as a reason for "all" crime increasing.


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.
0
reply
Kilam_Namoan
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
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.
0
reply
vybzkartel
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(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.

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
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

New lockdown - Do you agree schools and universities should remain open?

Yes (42)
36.21%
No (60)
51.72%
I don't know (14)
12.07%

Watched Threads

View All