Criminologist: Some legislators advocate mandating a sentence of life in prison for anyone who, having twice served sentences for serious crimes, is subsequently convicted of a third serious crime. These legislators argue that such a policy would reduce crime dramatically, since it would take people with a proven tendency to commit crimes off the streets permanently. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that people old enough to have served two prison sentences for serious crimes rarely commit more than one subsequent crime. Filling our prisons with such individuals would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect, since it would limit our ability to incarcerate younger criminals, who commit a far greater proportion of serious crimes.
In the argument as a whole, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is a claim that has been advanced in support of that conclusion.
The first is a conclusion that the argument as a whole seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against that conclusion.
The first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a prediction made on the basis of that conclusion.
The first is a generalization about the likely effect of a policy under consideration in the argument; the second points out a group of exceptional cases to which that generalization does not apply.
(1)一些立法者觉得应该让那些两次犯重罪,随后又犯重罪的罪犯终身监禁,他们认为这样可以显著减少犯罪(第一个黑体部分),因为这可以使那些有犯罪倾向的人永远远离街市。
(2)这个观点忽略了这样的情况:那些在监狱待了两期重判的家伙已经老得几乎不能再次犯罪,让这些人待在监狱里会削弱监狱收治年轻罪犯的能力,而年轻罪犯犯下重罪的比率要大得多了。
结论:让那些老得几乎无法犯罪的家伙充斥监狱可能会收到与立法者的期望恰得其反的效果(第二个黑体部分)。
为什么再看一遍就对了…
+1
+1
+1
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论