Q10 - Famous personalities found guilty

[cyruswhittaker]

I'm having trouble with this question. Assuming the statements are true, we have the second sentence saying that "the law rules out...," so my inference is that, if BOTH statements are true, then C must be supported, ie., there must be alternative factors that can override the principle of equality.

However, D is the correct answer. I can understand how D could be correct if we did not have certainty that the rule of equality is effective.

Please help me better understand this question.

[bbirdwell]

Let's review the facts of the argument:

1. Famous personalities found guilty of crimes in well-publicized trials are increasingly sentenced to community service.
2. Unknown defendants convicted of similar crimes almost always go to prison
3. The principle of equality rules out using fame and publicity as relevant considerations.

Notice that (C) says "properly" overridden. We have no evidence that the overriding of the principle is proper in any way. Quite the contrary, the argument seems to suggest that the fact that some celebrities get only community service is a bad thing.

In considering (D), we actually don't have any certainty that the principle is "effective." To say the principle "rules out" is not to say that that "ruling out" actually happens -- it's just what the principle is designed to do.

Consider an analogy: Laws rule out exceeding the speed limit. This doesn't mean that the speed limit is never exceeded.

Does that help?

[cyruswhittaker]

Yes, I needed to be more attentive to the details of this question rather than inferring outside of what the stimulus actually stated.

[adamdeskus]

The reason I questioned answer D was due to the answer stating "many cases." Is my understanding that "many" includes "any" (thereby not including "most") correct ? If so, I understand why answer D is okay.

[bbirdwell]

Not sure if i totally understand. Does this help?

many ≠ most;
"many" and "most" are not the same thing. Most is more than 50%. Many is relative to context and is a much looser term.

any = all;
If "any red car goes fast," then "all red cars go fast."

[griffin.811]

So I had an issue with all the answer choices here, but without the time constraint, I think I understand why D is best.

A-we dont know that the principle is applied in ONLY A FEW as frequency is not refernced

B-Assumes, among other things, that the # of celebrities convicted equals # of unknowns convicted

C-We dont know that an overide would be proper as this is not referenced. Maybe judges improperly override, or ignore the principle in some cases

D-1. the use of "similar" in the passage allows for varying degrees of the same crime to be committed. Maybe the unknowns are stealing from homeless people, while celebs are stealing from their brothers. Varying degrees allow for lighter/harsher penalties.
2. Maybe it wasnt the sentencing of celebs that was a violation, but the sentencing of unknowns to unecessarily harsh sentences that was the violation.

E-leniency not mentioned

I guess D is the hardest to prove wrong so it would be the "best" available answer, but I think it is far from air tight.

[lissethbayona]

Can someone clarify why (A) is wrong?

My thought process for (A) was as follows: We know famous personalities are increasingly sentenced to the performance of community service, whereas unknown defendants in similar situations almost always serve prison sentences. With that, we know that the principle of equality is increasingly being violated (in the cases involving celebrities) and so would also be able to infer that the principle of equality is rigorously applied in only a few types of criminal trials.

To me, the word "increasingly" indicated that while the principle is being violated there are still some cases in which it is applied. What am I misunderstanding here? Or is it that this is a MSS question type and (D) is simply a better answer? (Which I do realize is a better answer and I did end up selecting it but it took me a while so I am trying to improve my approach)

Thanks!

[maryadkins]

With that, we know that the principle of equality is increasingly being violated (in the cases involving celebrities) and so would also be able to infer that the principle of equality is rigorously applied in only a few types of criminal trials.

This is where you take a wrong turn. We have no IDEA how many types of criminal trials the principle is applied in. Just because it's being foregone in an increasing number of trials involving famous people doesn't mean it doesn't apply in 99% of other cases! Maybe famous people used to be .00001% of trials and now they are .001%. That's still a heck of a lot of cases where the principle is applied.

[t-haga-k42]

Dear Manhattan Prep,

I mistakenly eliminated D because I thought the conclusion was about equality, and not about sentencing celebrities.
Is there anything wrong about sentencing celebrities? Whereas it is wrong to sentence celebrities to community service because of their fame is wrong.
Could you kindly please tell me the procedure in solving this problem? I mean, what is the approach to make with this problem?

Thank you very much in advance.