Letter to the editor: You say that if the government were to confiscate a portion of the wages of convicted burglars ...

AndreaK on November 1, 2019

Hi @Ryan-Mahabir,

A good way to approach this question is to really isolate the conclusion. For us, that’s the last sentence. The “…it would still be justified” is a very strong claim. Because this is a strengthen question, we want to be looking for something that strengthens this strong claim.

C) In our stimulus, we are given a motive (confiscating wages in order to confiscate victims). We are trying to strengthen the conclusion that confiscating wages from criminals would be justified. The motive (confiscating wages in order to confiscate victims) prompting an action (confiscating wages) determines whether or not that action is justified (conclusion). Saying the motive is relevant to the justification of the action strengthens our conclusion here.

D) Answer choice D lets us down by saying “only if.” This introduces something that is required for a crime to be justified—not something that guarantees justification (sufficient), or helps make justification significantly or at least somewhat more likely (strengthen, our objective here).

Hope this helps!

amf on April 5, 2020

Can you please further explain how D does not work? Why do we need something that is sufficient for being justifiable and not necessary?