PrepTest 105, Section 2, Question 22
To hold criminals responsible for their crimes involves(60 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(9 more words not shown)
- Ait exploits an(18 more words not shown)
- Bit fails to(13 more words not shown)
- Cthe way it(19 more words not shown)
- Dits conclusion is(14 more words not shown)
- Eits conclusion contradicts(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does recognizing the influence of someone's environment mean we cannot hold that person responsible? Not obviously. We might accept that a person's upbringing helped shape an action while still thinking accountability has a purpose, such as discouraging future harm.
But set that disagreement aside and follow the author's own reasoning. The author excuses criminals because their actions come from the environment that shaped them. Then the author blames law-abiding people for creating that environment.
Why don't those people get the same excuse?
The first sentence says all actions are ultimately products of the environment. That includes the actions of the law-abiding majority. If environmental influence removes responsibility for criminals, the same reasoning should remove responsibility for the people who helped create the criminals' environment. The author can't apply that excuse to one group and simply discard it for the other.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question should point us toward this clash within the argument. We don't need to settle the larger debate about free will or punishment. We need to show that the author's own reason for withholding blame also applies to the people the conclusion blames.
Working the answers
- A
The word “environment” keeps the same relevant meaning: the surroundings and influences that shape a person's character. There is no switch, for example, from a person's social upbringing to the natural environment discussed in pollution policy. The inconsistency concerns how responsibility is assigned, not two meanings of a word.
- B
Distinguishing acceptable behavior from unacceptable behavior wouldn't fix this argument. The author is deciding who is responsible for criminal behavior, not claiming that all behavior is equally acceptable. Even if the author clearly labeled every action acceptable or unacceptable, the inconsistent use of the environmental excuse would remain.
- C
The author doesn't deny that the people who commit crimes are criminals. The argument calls them criminals while denying that they should bear responsibility for their crimes. Whether a person counts as a criminal and whether the author thinks that person deserves blame are different questions. This answer attacks a denial the argument never makes.
- D
There is no statistical sample supporting a population-wide conclusion. Mentioning a law-abiding majority doesn't turn the argument into a study of a small group. The author offers a general account of environmental influence and responsibility, then applies it inconsistently.
- ECorrect
The earlier reasoning depends on the idea that actions produced by a person's environment do not make that person truly responsible. The conclusion then holds law-abiding people responsible because of their actions, even though the premise about all actions makes their actions products of the environment too.
The problem isn't merely that the author reaches different judgments about two groups. Different judgments could be justified by a relevant difference. Here the author supplies a principle broad enough to excuse both groups, then blames one group without giving any reason that principle stops applying.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.