critical thinking help Watch

vybzkartel
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year 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: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year 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 1 year 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
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

University open days

  • University of Roehampton
    Department of Humanities; Department of Drama, Theatre and Performance; Department of Social Sciences; Department of English and Creative Writing Undergraduate
    Wed, 20 Feb '19
  • Keele University
    Postgraduate Open Afternoon Postgraduate
    Wed, 20 Feb '19
  • Manchester Metropolitan University
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 20 Feb '19

Do unconditional offers make teenagers lazy?

Yes (44)
60.27%
No (29)
39.73%

Watched Threads

View All