Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integrity...
BatmanFebruary 4, 2014
Need your help
I don't understand what the answer (e) means. Especially in the latter part, which is "only if it is not feasible..." Does politician really infer 'further modification?" Didn't he just concentrate on the status quo???
Thanks,
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
We are looking for a principle that provides the politician with the strongest basis for countering the public advocate's argument. The politician's argument is that the mandatory jail sentences have enhanced the integrity of the justice system because they eliminate the discrepancy in severity of sentences due to lenient judges and harsher ones. The public advocate, however, argues that without this discretionary power, there can be no leniency even when it would be appropriate. Thus, now juries sometimes acquit a defendant, solely because jurors feel that the mandatory sentence would be too harsh.
Answer choice (E) states that changes in a system of justice that produce undesirable consequences (as in our case with the mandatory jail sentences leading to acquittals) should be reversed only if it is not feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification. This principle would be diagrammed as follows:
R ==> not FACFM FACFM ==> not R
This principle counters the public advocate's argument that the changes should be reversed (i.e. "it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed") because there is still a possibility that we can fix the problems caused by the mandatory sentences through further modifications.
Remember that our knowledge is limited to what is stated in the stimulus. Because it is not stated, we cannot make assumptions about further modifications not being possible. Thus, if answer choice (E) was the principle to follow, then it would provide the politician with the strongest basis for countering the public advocate's argument because it could be possible that further modification could ameliorate the situation, which leads us to the conclusion that the changes should not be reversed.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
BatmanFebruary 17, 2014
Thanks a lot!!!^^
Maria-MarinMay 14, 2020
Why if we cannot make assumptions about further modifications not being possible, would we be able to assume that further modifications would be possible
