Q6

[Amir.m.shoar]

Hello,

I'm having a hard time understanding why the author wouldn't agree with (C)? If the utility of lawful activity decreases, wouldn't that make unlawful activity more attractive? Or is that just an unwarranted assumption on my part?

and also, how is (B) supported?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Hm... I think you may have misread the answer, Amir.m.shoar.

This inference question demands that we eliminate four answers the author would agree with, leaving us with one answer the author would either disagree with or find irrelevant.

To give us a framework, the passage focuses on the idea that both sides' proposed solutions help reduce crime by shifting the utility balance away from crime and toward lawful behavior. (lines 40-41)

There are four answers that fit within this framework:

(A) stronger punishments = (less utility from crime) = less crime
(B) less rehabilitation = (less utility from lawful behavior) = more crime
(D) less economic access = (less utility from lawful behavior) = more crime
(E) INVERSE RELATIONSHIP:

more law enforcement = (less utility from crime) = less crime
less law enforcement = (more utility from crime) = more crime

The only one that breaks this model is (C):
LESS utility from lawful activities = LESS crime

I'm having a hard time understanding why the author wouldn't agree with (C)? If the utility of lawful activity decreases, wouldn't that make unlawful activity more attractive?

Yes! But that would mean MORE crime, not LESS!

Does that help clear things up a bit?