Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: June 02 Sec 2 #15  (Read 1456 times)

jjleon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
    • Email
June 02 Sec 2 #15
« on: April 04, 2010, 06:55:22 PM »
Editorial: The Threat of harsh punishment for transgression usually decrease one's tendency to feel guilty or shame for committing that transgression, and the tendency to feel guilty or shame for committing a transgression reduces a person's tendency to commit transgression. Thus increasing the severity of the legal penalties for transgression may amplify people's tendency....

I don't understand why B: at least some actions that involve ignoring the welfare of others are transgressions.

When I negate this answer choice: None of the actions that involve ignoring the welfare of others are not transgression. Does not really attack the conclusion. At least I don't see it.

_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ __________


marsilni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: June 02 Sec 2 #15
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2010, 10:33:06 PM »
I don't believe you are negating the answer properly.  I believe the correct negation would be: none of the actions ignoring the welfare of others ARE transgressions.

Look at the stimulus.  It starts out talking about transgressions, shame and the tendency to commit transgressions.  Then it makes a weird jump to the idea of the welfare of others.  To me, that's a big hole.  This answer helps fill the hole.