Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardRole in Argument

Administrative Law Theorist: Many scholars advocate replacing discretionary parole boards with automated risk-assessment algorithms, assuming that statistical models eliminate human bias. However, these algorithms are trained exclusively on historical arrest records, which systematically over-represent minority communities due to historical over-policing. Consequently, algorithmic risk scores necessarily perpetuate the statistical biases embedded in past policing practices. Therefore, the predictive scores generated by such tools cannot serve as an objective measure of individual recidivism risk. It follows that adopting automated risk-assessment algorithms will fail to create a more equitable parole determination system.

Based on the argument above, arrange the following statements in order of structural logical dependency, starting from the foundational empirical premise, proceeding through the intermediate conclusions, and ending with the overall main conclusion.

  1. 1Automated risk-assessment algorithms are trained on historical arrest records that disproportionately reflect minority communities because of past over-policing.
  2. 2Algorithmic risk scores necessarily perpetuate the statistical biases embedded in historical policing data.
  3. 3The predictive scores generated by automated risk-assessment tools cannot serve as an objective measure of individual recidivism risk.
  4. 4Adopting automated risk-assessment algorithms will fail to create a more equitable parole determination system.

Answer

The correct logical order from foundational premise to overall main conclusion begins with the statement regarding the biased historical training data, leads to the intermediate conclusion that the risk scores perpetuate historical biases, advances to the further intermediate conclusion that these scores cannot serve as objective measures of recidivism risk, and concludes with the overall main claim that adopting these algorithms will fail to create a more equitable parole system.
The correct sequence mirrors the hierarchical dependency of the argument: the unargued premise regarding training data over-representing minority communities supports the intermediate conclusion that the scores perpetuate historical bias, which in turn supports the intermediate conclusion that the scores are not objective measures of recidivism, which ultimately supports the overall conclusion that the policy will not produce a more equitable parole system.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the unargued factual premise serving as the foundational support.
The statement that algorithms are trained on historical arrest records reflecting over-policed minority communities is introduced as an established fact without supporting evidence.
Foundational premises provide the evidential basis for subsequent inferences in an argument structure.
2
Trace the immediate deduction drawn directly from the foundational premise.
The claim that algorithmic scores perpetuate historical bias is signaled by 'Consequently' and directly follows from the nature of the training data.
This establishes the first intermediate conclusion, linking empirical training data to the properties of the resulting scores.
3
Identify the second subsidiary conclusion derived from the first intermediate conclusion.
The claim that predictive scores cannot serve as objective measures of recidivism risk is signaled by 'Therefore' and is supported by the fact that the scores perpetuate past biases.
This acts as a bridge conclusion, applying the property of biased scores to the concept of objective measurement.
4
Identify the ultimate claim that receives support from the full chain of reasoning.
The statement that adopting automated algorithms will fail to create a more equitable parole system is introduced with 'It follows that' and represents the primary thesis of the theorist.
The overall main conclusion is the final destination of the argument's inferential flow and lends no support to any further statement.

Key Concept

Structural Logical Dependency and Cascading Conclusions in Argument Analysis
Rate this question

Topics

Role in Argument

More questions from this topic