Question

The author's statement that selective incapacitation may "end up permitting harmful people from the middle class to evade a sanction that less privileged offenders cannot" (lines 32-34) assumes that: 1\. there are more offenders in the lower class than in the middle class. 2\. the dangerous repeat offenders are lower class and not middle class. 3\. harmful middle class people can use their money to avoid prison. 4\. lower class offenders do not deserve to suffer incarceration.

Short answer

The author's statement assumes that harmful middle-class people can use their money to avoid prison (option 3).

Step-by-step solution

Understand the author's statement

Selective incapacitation is a policy that involves identifying and detaining dangerous repeat offenders. The author is concerned that this policy may allow harmful middle-class people to evade sanctions that less privileged (most likely lower-class) offenders cannot.

Analyze and eliminate options

Now, we will analyze each given option and decide if it matches the author's assumption in the statement: 1\. there are more offenders in the lower class than in the middle class: This option talks about the number of offenders in each social class, but it does not address the concern of the author's statement about middle-class people evading sanctions. 2\. the dangerous repeat offenders are lower class and not middle class: This option talks about the social class of dangerous repeat offenders but doesn't consider the possibility of harmful middle-class people avoiding sanctions. 3\. harmful middle class people can use their money to avoid prison: This option directly discusses the concern raised in the author's statement which is about harmful middle-class people avoiding sanctions (imprisonment in this case) that less privileged offenders cannot. 4\. lower class offenders do not deserve to suffer incarceration: This option discusses the deservedness of lower-class offenders to suffer incarceration, which is not the assumed perspective of the author's statement. Based on our analysis, option 3 seems to be the closest assumption made in the author's statement.

Write the conclusion

The author's statement that selective incapacitation may "end up permitting harmful people from the middle class to evade a sanction that less privileged offenders cannot" (lines 32-34) assumes that harmful middle-class people can use their money to avoid prison (option 3).

Key concepts

Selective Incapacitation

Selective incapacitation is a crime control policy that aims to identify and detain individuals who are deemed to be especially dangerous or likely to commit more crimes in the future. The idea is to reduce crime by targeting repeat offenders who contribute disproportionately to crime rates. However, its implementation raises ethical and practical questions about fairness and effectiveness.

When discussing selective incapacitation, it's crucial to recognize how socioeconomic status can play a role in the justice system. For instance, wealthier individuals might have access to better legal representation which can impact the outcome of their cases. The assumption in the original exercise that harmful middle-class people might use their resources to avoid sanctions illustrates a potential pitfall of selective incapacitation, where social inequalities could lead to uneven application of justice. The exercise underscores the importance of ensuring that such policies are applied equitably across different social groups to maintain social justice and public trust in the legal system.

Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is a critical aspect of analyzing arguments and is particularly important in standardized tests like the LSAT. It involves the ability to deduce valid conclusions from given premises, identify logical fallacies, and evaluate arguments for their strength and consistency.

Let's relate logical reasoning to the original exercise. The critical reasoning process involves examining the author's statement and systematically evaluating each option to identify the underlying assumption. The student must ignore irrelevant information and home in on the essential elements that pertain to the statement's assumption. In this case, the use of logical reasoning helped to determine that the author's presupposition is that harmful middle-class individuals are potentially able to circumvent prison sentences due to their resources, highlighting the importance of logic in understanding and critiquing arguments related to public policies.

Analyzing Arguments

Analyzing arguments is a key skill not just in test-taking but also in daily life as it forms the basis for critical thinking. This process involves breaking down an argument into its constituent parts — premises, assumptions, and conclusions — and evaluating its logical structure and evidence.

In the context of the exercise, analyzing the argument means understanding the author's concern with selective incapacitation and identifying the unspoken assumptions that support such a concern. To successfully analyze arguments, one should question the validity of the assumptions and seek additional evidence or counterarguments that might strengthen or weaken the original position. By doing this, the student hones the ability to discern logical coherence and rigor in complex issues, which is pivotal for engaging with broader societal and ethical discussions, including those surrounding criminal justice policies.