***
This Logical Reasoning question is from the June 2004 LSAT.
No real need for a chain of phrases here, considering how short the argument is, so let's just jump right into it. We can't pre-phrase either, since any number of things could not lend support to the argument, and we can't predict what some of them will be. Let's go through the choices, and remember that given the "except," we're looking for something that doesn't support the argument:
A) The opposite of what we want. If people are motivated by risk and don't really care about consequences, then longer sentences will not deter robbery, just as the speaker said. We want something that contradicts the speaker in the argument.
B) Again, the opposite of what we want, since it lends support to the criminologist. If another somewhat similar crime, embezzlement, wasn't deterred by longer sentences, there's reason to believe that robbery wouldn't be either, just as the criminologist said.
C) Correct. That terms have decreased doesn't support or contradict the argument of the criminologist, which is just the kind of answer choice we want. The argument's talking about the relationship between sentences and the amount of robberies, but this choice talks just about sentence length. The speaker's making no claim about sentence length on its own. This choice is beyond the argument's scope, but in this case that's a good thing, given how the question is phrased.
D) The opposite of what we want, since it supports the argument. If robbers don't think they'll be caught, a higher sentence won't deter them, since they don't expect to get any sentence or conviction at all.
E) Again, the opposite of what we want, since it supports the criminologist. If they don't know the average sentence, there is a significant reason to believe that increasing sentences won't deter them from committing robberies, since they probably won't know about the new sentences either.
Remember:
1) Make sure you know what the question's asking. This is very important on "except" questions like this one, since we're not looking for the choice that confirms the argument but rather the one that doesn't confirm it, which is kind of counterintuitive. Remember that you cannot pre-phrase when there is an indefinite number of possible right answers, as there was here (any number of things might not confirm the argument). Use your own judgment and don't spend a ton of time underlining or writing to make a chain of phrases when the argument's really short, as it was here.
2) Eliminate answer choices that are the opposite of the kind of choice we're looking for; that sounds obvious, but it's amazing how easily one can get tripped up if you aren't looking for these kinds of answer choices. Depending on how the question is phrased, a choice beyond the argument's scope can be the right one; here, for example, they're asking for which choice doesn't confirm the argument, and a choice beyond the argument's scope fits that criterion.
