In this passage, the author reveals their main conclusion in the last line: “Preventing a crime does not make it right to commit another crime”. The author justifies this by saying that no one, not even police officers, are above the law. Therefore, if they break the law, regardless of the circumstances, they should be dealt with accordingly. In more generalised terms, the process of committing bad acts is not worth a good outcome.
To approach these questions, read over the text, grab the main idea of the argument and put it into more generalized terms, and then find the best fitting answer. You can also think of the answer like another example that explains the author’s point of view in the answer.
Key Steps:
- First find the conclusion and evidence, this will make it easier to find the argument
- Arguments are dependent on evidence to draw conclusions
- Identify argument and generalize it
- Use the supporting evidence to help, examples should be proving a more generalized take-home message
- Prove your principle
- What is it trying to argue? If you can prove what the principle is arguing, it is likely a good principle
Which one of the following is the general principle underlying the above argument?
A. An act is criminal only if it is committed for criminal reasons:
Statement A goes against the beliefs of the author. The author states that “A breach of the law is a breach of the law, whoever commits it and for whatever reason”. Statement A is incorrect.
B. Serious crime must be prevented by any reasonable means:
Statement B also goes against the beliefs of the author. The author makes it clear that: “ Preventing a crime does not make it right to commit another crime”. This is regardless of the severity of the crime. The author believes that it is unacceptable to do whatever it takes to prevent crime. Statement B is incorrect.
C. The police have a duty to protect lawabiding citizens from violence:
Statement C is reflected in the passage when the author acknowledges that the job of the police is to protect citizens. The author does not however state whether those citizens should be “law-abiding”. With all this said, the author believes that the duty of the police officers is not above the law and does not give them the right to break the law to do their duty. Therefore, Statement C does not represent the author’s argument accurately and is incorrect.
D. There is no such thing as a victimless crime:
Statement D is also reflected in the passage, as the author states that “Some of these activities have victims”. This however is not the main argument, but rather used as evidence to support the main argument. The main argument of the passage is: “Preventing a crime does not make it right to commit another crime”. Therefore, Statement D does not accurately represent the author’s argument accurately and is incorrect.
E. The end does not justify the means:
Statement E is a generalised version of the following statement from the passage: “Preventing a crime does not make it right to commit another crime”. The author believes that the ends (preventing crime) does not justify the means (committing crime). Therefore, Statement E is correct.