Q22 - To hold criminals responsible

[vswamy]

Hi. Could you explain question #22 for me? This is the question about how criminals' actions are products of their environment that forged their character and then it goes on to say that the law-abiding citizens who uphold the environment are the only ones responsible for the crime.
Basically, the wording of the question and the answer choices just confuse me. Also, could you clarify why the answer choice E or Its conclusion contradicts an implicit principle on which an earlier part of the argument is based. And what does implicit mean? Thanks for your time and effort.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I like this one...

It definitely has the characteristic of carefully twisted language.

The argument begins by claiming that criminal actions, like all actions, are a product of the environment that forged them. Further, it claims that holding criminals responsible for their actions is flawed.

An implicit assumption of this argument is that criminals are not responsible for their actions, because their actions are a product of their environment.

The conclusion claims that the law-abiding majority are responsible for their role in creating the environment. But wait a minute! The law-abiding citizens' actions are also a product of their environment. So, according to the assumption we could not hold the law-abiding citizens responsible for their actions. Clearly, this contradicts the conclusion.

(A) refers to the use of equivocal language. The meaning of the term "environment" never shifted. So answer choice (A) is not a flaw committed in the argument.
(B) is true, but so what. The argument doesn't need to distinguish between socially acceptable and socially unacceptable behavior.
(C) is not true. The argument never contends that one does not become a criminal from committing a criminal action.
(D) is not even close. There are no statistics in this argument.
(E) is the correct answer. The argument's conclusion directly contradicts an "implicit" principle - one that is not stated, but would have to be true in order to not hold the criminals responsible for their actions. According to the principle, we could not hold law-abiding citizens responsible for their actions, since their actions are also a product of their environment.

Let me know if that doesn't clear it up!

[daisy_dolly2002]

hey, i'm still really confused on this quest. I don't understand how it contradicts. it seems that they go together. law-abiding people create the environment that is responsible.

could you clear this up?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sure, think of it this way. The argument says that because criminals are a product of their environment they are not responsible for their actions. At the same time it says that law-abiding citizens are responsible because their actions create the environment.

But remember, law-abiding citizens' actions are also a product of their environment, and so by the same token they too should not be held responsible. The conclusion contradicts an implicit principle in this argument, that if your action is a product of the environment then you can't be held responsible for the action. So how can they conclude that law-abiding citizens are responsible for their actions that do most to create the environment?

Does that make sense?

[andyevans000]

I was thrown for a loop on this one too, but the explanation here clears it up. For those who are still unclear, the key phrase that makes the contradiction is "like all actions."

[T.housman31]

I put E for this answer, however, how is the principle "implicit"? It seems pretty explicit to me.

[wguwguwgu]

I totally like msherman's explanation, now I also understand why E says "implicit".

I picked E, but from very different reason.
line5: the majority ... DO MOST to create environment...
line7: NOTHING ELSE
so I thought it's a banal flaw changing the scope of the premise. and E is the only AC that kind of fits. --- though I had no idea why "implicit".

I see msherman's flaw is so much cooler, but is this difference another potential flaw in this argument?

Many thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I picked E, but from very different reason.
line5: the majority ... DO MOST to create environment...
line7: NOTHING ELSE
so I thought it's a banal flaw changing the scope of the premise. and E is the only AC that kind of fits.

I can see your point. I think what you're saying is that the conclusion is much too strong given the evidence. Just because it is the actions of law-abiding citizens that do most to create the environment does not mean that nothing but those actions makes law abiding citizens responsible for crime. There could be something else besides their actions that make law-abiding citizens responsible for crime.

Nice job wguwguwgu in finding an additional error. However, answer choice (E) does not describe this issue.

Hope that helps!

[griffin.811]

I like Matt's explanation for this. I got this right by similar reasoning (I think), just wanted to see what others thought about it.

I thought the implicit flaw was this:

Author says criminals not responsible because environment forged the criminal actions

environment created by law abiding citizens

so Law abiding citizens, not criminals are responsible.

BUT WAIT!! Weren't the CRIMINALS, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS before they engaged in their crimes!?!?!

So they TOO were responsible for the creation of the environment and must ALSO be responsible!!

What do you all think? Especially interested to hear Matt's opinion whenever you get a chance.

[WaltGrace1983]

I eliminated (A) (B) and (D) easily but I had a feeling that there was something that I was missing with (E). With language like that put in (E), I always get worried that I either (1) missed something or (2) am giving way too much thought to an answer choice that is clearly wrong because what it is talking about isn't even in the argument. I apparently missed something

So let me see if I got this right...

All actions are products of the environment
+
Law-abiding majority "do most to" create and maintain environment
-->
Law-abiding people's actions, and nothing else, makes them responsible.

So what the LSAT is doing here is making you focus on the criminal actions when the real important thing to consider is actions in general.

So the principle is that you cannot be responsible for your actions because your actions are a product of the environment. Thus, by claiming that it is the actions (and nothing else) of the law abiding people that make them responsible, this denies this principle because, as just stated, one cannot be responsible for actions.

Right?

This is tricky nonetheless and I. Don't. Like. It.

[Yangyi.vita]

This is a really stupid question. The key point in the conclusion is the "nothing else" I think. The first sentence says that criminal actions LIKE ALL ACTIONS are ultimate products of environment, which implies that law-abiding actions are also products of environment. Therefore the law-abiding people deserve the equal treatment as the criminals. The confusing point here is the second sentence, but does the fact that the law-abiding create MOST(WHICH EQUALS TO SOME) of the environment justify the law-abiding being held as responsible??? Apparently, it would be a contradiction to the first sentence. But, again, really confusing still.

[Yangyi.vita]

Yeah upon a second glance, I think the two sentences are trying to say that both criminal and law-abiding actions are products of the environment. But the logic behind the conclusion is that who create the environment who gets held responsible to the products. But, law-abiding people only create partial environment(most). So how come they, and nothing else be held responsible for the one kind of the products?

[beatthelsat]

Hi!

I was wondering if an instructor could clear up B for me.

I was between B and E and decided to go with B because I didn't spot the flaw that mattsherman identified in this post. Although E now makes sense.

I chose B because I thought that if the law-abiding majority created and maintained an environment only through socially acceptable actions, then they cannot be truly responsible for the crime and the author's conclusion is flawed.

Hence, not distinguishing between actions that are socially acceptable and socially unacceptable is a flaw in the argument.

Can someone please help me identify an easy way to figure out why this reasoning is wrong?


Thanks!

[TillyS471]

I got this question right probably because i've heard the same flaw ... quite often, especially amongst some religious preachings....

if you think about it, all actions are products of environment, environment is composed of people
THEREFORE: criminals are not responsible for their action, only other people (except criminals are)
Assuming : Criminals do not contribute to the environment? that they do not affect other people's action?
this is kinda like a mashed up ball that cant be taken apart.
Since all actions are affected by environment, everyones action is affected by the environment, and the environment is composed of EVERYONE. You can't really cherrypick out .. one group who are not responsible for any action that happens within our community.... because essentially we are ALL responsible.

Think Butterfly effect. :
A butterfly flies, or moves its wings... -> hurricane in south america. or smth..
The underlying thing is one small change can cause chain reaction. but WHERE DOES THIS SMALL CHANGE BEGIN, like how come the butterfly moves its wings? is it not because, or caused by some ants moving around? or some water droplets moved?
See that's the essential principle of butterfly effect, like a snake biting its own tail, theres no beginning no end, it just comes round and round and round. like ALL happenings are caused by some happenings, and you keep applying that principle it really does not get anywhere.
I think this is very reminiscent of some philosophical schools like buddhist or hermeticism....

[YiZ98]

Thanks for all the inputs. I can definitely see how (E) is the correct answer choice. But still, I have some questions regarding choice (A).

It seemed to me that there is indeed a meaning shift for the term "environment." The first use of the term in line three refers to environment as "environment that forged the criminals' character" -- perhaps family environments, social environments, etc. But for the argument to make sense to me, the second use of the term in line 6 appears to refer to another kind of environment, namely, the environment that does not take in the fact that criminals are products of their environment (or, the environment that takes criminals as sole responders of their actions).

If the two uses of the term "environment" means the same, I can't see why law-abiding people are the ones who created and maintained the environment that forged criminals. In other words, why are law-abiding people responsible for a broken family which led to a future criminal?

Hope someone can help! Thanks!

Best,
J

[HughM388]

I think I like the flaw described by (E) less than I like the argument's flaw that sees it failing to consider that the criminal, before committing a crime, was a part of the law-abiding majority, and therefore (according to the argument) was responsible for creating the environment that in turn engendered the criminal activity. Consequently, the criminal is culpable one way or the other—either for committing the crime or for being a member of the law-abiding majority that created the conditions that led to the crime.

But perhaps what I describe partakes of the flaw of contradiction described in (E), even if it is a different contradiction.