Question

Many people argue that the death penalty deters murder. However, the notorious killer Tom Hanks deliberately moved to a state that imposes the death penalty just before embarking on a series of ferocious murders. Thus, it seems clear that the existence of the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to murder. The argument above may best be characterised as:

• A. an appeal to emotion
• B. a flawed analogy
• C. a general conclusion based on a specific example
• D. circular reasoning

Hint:

One killer's story is used to support a sweeping claim about deterrence everywhere; that is over-generalisation from a single case.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept.
The passage uses exactly one case, a single killer's behaviour, to support a sweeping claim about the death penalty's effect on deterrence in general.

Step 2: Check option A.
The argument does not lean on emotionally charged language or appeals to sympathy or outrage; it presents a case as evidence, so it is not primarily an appeal to emotion.

Step 3: Check option B.
There is no comparison being drawn between two different situations that are then treated as alike, so this is not an analogy at all.

Step 4: Check option D.
The conclusion is not simply a restatement of the premise in different words, so this is not circular reasoning.

Step 5: Check option C.
One murderer's choice to move to a death-penalty state and then kill is used as if it proves something about deterrence everywhere, which is exactly a general conclusion drawn from a single specific example.

Step 6: Final Answer.
Option C best characterises this argument.