PrepTest 146

Incorrect. The statement in question is noted as a necessary condition ("To ensure . . . it is important to guarantee"), not a sufficient one as this answer suggests.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Legal system just → Guarantees crime doesn't unfairly benefit criminals
Therefore Ð The legal system should try to make sure crime doesn't pay

Answer Anticipation:
Here, the argument starts by raising a requirement for a legal system to remain just, and then it concludes a normative judgment—the legal system should make sure crime doesn't pay.

The statement in question is the necessary condition of that first conditional statement/principle that's used to justify the conclusion.

This argument is more convoluted in subject than in structure—it has an opening statement and then a clear conclusion indicator word! Let's not waste time and head straight to the answers.

Answer Explanation:
The statement in question sets out a requirement for a just legal system. That requirement is used to support the idea that criminals mustn't make money off their crimes—the conclusion of the argument. A requirement presented in a general form certainly qualifies as a principle, so this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Don't overthink Argument Structure questions. Here, the second statement was clearly the conclusion, so the first statement—the statement in question—needed to be a premise for it. From there, it was just a matter of analyzing the details of each answer choice.

Incorrect. There's no premise offered to support the idea that it's important to guarantee lawbreakers don't get a benefit over law abiders—it's stated as true without backing. And the statement highlighted in this answer certainly doesn't support it. As such, it's not a conclusion.

Incorrect. The argument never states that the "most important" goal is to ensure crime doesn't pay. It's just one of many potential goals, which the Jurist leaves unranked.

Incorrect. No one is making an argument that the criminal justice system has goals other than guaranteeing crime doesn't pay. The Jurist even leaves it open that the system can have other goals ("notwithstanding any other goals . . . "), so it's unlikely she'd be refuting an argument raising those goals.