Explain This?

The authors says that we can't hold criminals responsible for their choices, since all choices are the result of environment, so we should hold the law abiding majority responsible for creating the environment through their choices. However, there's a double standard here. We absolve the criminal for their choices as those choices are a product of the environment, but we do not absolve the choices of the majority, despite those being products of the same environment. This is a match for e.

Thank you! For ambiguous word use errors, if I have a hard time articulating how it's used differently, is there an alternative way I can "fact check" it?

I would just try to argue against it. As in imagine that someone you disagree with politically is making this argument, and try to attack it. This usually means coming up with more concrete counterpoints or examples, using the language and thoughts of the passage. For example here, I would try to place myself in the shoes of the law abiding majority, and see how I'd feel about this argument. Since the author effectively denies agency to those who break the law, why is my agency then criticized?

Ahh, that is a brilliant approach, thank you for that advice!