Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threa...

Ambria May 18, 2021

Right Answer. Curious about the Second Sentence

Hi! So, I got this answer correct. YAY! I'm trying to really get in the habit of understanding the role of each sentence in a passage. What role does the second sentence play? Is it considered a subsidiary conclusion?

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

Ryn November 14, 2021

Yes, I was confused on this too; originally I thought the second sentence was the main conclusion and the first was intermediate. Please help.

Jay-Etter January 24, 2022

Hi Ambria and Ryn,
we can think of the part of the second sentence that says "the breaking of a law does not justify incarceration" as an intermediate conclusion, because the stimulus goes on to justify this. They explain that in the case of ignorance and even free choice incarceration is not justified. So why is the second sentence the intermediate conclusion? Because it is being used to justify the main conclusion. We can think of the argument as:
Conclusion: it's unreasonable to incarcerate anyone besides for the reason that they're a threat to property or lives
Why1? breaking of a law does not justify incarceration
Why2? lawbreaking is either because of ignorance or free choice, and neither of these justify incarceration.

Why1 is both being supported and supporting the conclusion.
Hope this helps, feel free to follow up.