@demistry Hi, Debbie. The initial claim in the sentence is the conclusion here. We know that it is a claim, rather than background information (as is posited in B) because it claims that "It is unreasonable that..." The rest of the prompt is used to show reasons that one may believe it is usually unreasonable to incarcerate someone. This is why it's the conclusion, not background information. Does that make sense?
theprince5February 29, 2020
The way I analyzed the argument.
• Conclusion: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people.
• Premise (Subsidiary conclusion)
• The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration,
Premise of subsidiary conclusion:
“for lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one's actions, or from the free choice on the part of the lawbreaker.”
Premise that explain why “ignorance and “free choice” is not a justification to incarcerate someone :
• Obviously mere ignorance cannot justify incarcerating a lawbreaker, and even free choice on the part of the lawbreaker fails to justify incarceration, for free choice proceeds from the desires of an agent, and the desires of an agent are products of genetics and environmental conditioning, neither of which is controlled by the agent.
So everything in this stimulus support the first sentence, which is “It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people.” The other sentences are just expansion for different objection that the argument is addressing.
1- Breaking the law does not justify incarceration.
2- Breaking the law as a result of ignorance does not justify incarceration.
3- Breaking the law as result of free choice does not justify incarceration.
