Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integr...

Lucie on October 31, 2019

Answer choice E

Hello, Would you mind explaining why answer E is correct? Thank you!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Victoria on November 1, 2019

Hi @Lucie,

The politician is arguing that the recent mandatory jail sentences have enhanced the integrity of the justice system. Why? Because there is no longer a difference between the sentences imposed by lenient as compared to severe judges.

The public advocate responds that the mandatory jail sentences must be repealed. Why? Because judges no longer have the discretion to be lenient in appropriate situations leading some juries to acquit defendants when they believe the punishment to be too harsh, thereby negatively impacting the administration of accurate justice.

We are looking for the principle which allows the politician to counter the advocate's argument that the mandatory jail sentences must be repealed.

E is correct because it provides an alternative to repealing the jail sentences.

Changes that result in undesirable consequences must be reversed only if it is not feasible to fix the issues through further modification.

Reverse UC - > Not FM

FM - > Not reverse UC

We can see from the contrapositive statement above that, if the negative impacts can be ameliorated through further modification to the justice system, it is not necessary to repeal the mandatory jail sentences.

Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.