Q15 - Letter to the editor: according to last Thursday's edi

[uhdang]

Sentence role question. Elaborating on what function a specified sentence does in the argument is rather confusing especially with some convoluted languages. I was really confused with the language and really had to focus and analyze when reviewing.

So, let's analyze the argument first. This is a "Premise - Intermediate Conclusion - Main Conclusion" structure.

P: Police report says at least 70 of criminals get caught
P: Burglars are criminals
P: Some burglars will undoubtedly escape.

IC: a large percentage of them will eventually be caught

MC: Editorial's claim that burglary runs almost no risk of being caught is false. In other words, the letter writer's conclusion is that burglary does run some risk of getting caught.

Let's look at the answer choices.

A. Specified sentence reads, 'some burglars will undoubtedly escape.' and the conclusion is, 'there are some risk of getting caught for burglars.' One says they will escape and the other says they can be caught. The first clearly does NOT support the latter. It rather undermines the latter claim.

B. As we have identified. The specified sentence is one of the premises, not the intermediate conclusion.

C. What is "the kind of case under discussion"? Issue here is whether there is a risk for burglars of being caught. And the letter writer is saying that there is. Thus, an appropriate example to be discussed is NOT the case of escaping, but the case of getting caught. Not the answer.

D. The letter writer's argument is directed to saying, "there is a risk of getting caught in burglary." And the position against it is, "there is almost no risk of getting caught in burglary", as the editorial claims. Does the specified sentence of "some burglars will escape" a restatement of the latter? "Having almost no risk" and "some of them escaping" are not the same statements. So, NOT a restatement.

E. What we should notice here is that the conclusion doesn't deny the possibility of NOT getting caught. It says, "there is a RISK of getting caught", in other words, there is a possibility of getting caught. In other words, again, some might get caught and some might NOT get caught. So, stating "some will escape" does NOT necessarily undermine the letter writer's conclusion. And since the argument is inclined to having a risk, the term "concede" appropriately express a PARTIAL consent.

I really struggled to get this far, so if someone could give me a feedback on this reasoning, I'd be very grateful.