Reference no: EM132717704

Read the following passage and standardize it:

Which option is the correct standardization of the passage?

Option 1:

In the following argument, Counselor Smart claims that the defendant, Shifty McRogue, is guilty of robbing a local bank. Several witnesses confirmed that the defendant has been in desperate need of money ever since he lost his job at the cracker factory. And McRogue has the profile of a criminal, since we know he has established a prior criminal record: he served thirty days in jail just last year for driving under the influence. Moreover, I have an expert witness, Dr. Quack, the famous phrenologist, who will testify that McRogue has a predisposition to rob banks. In fact, if found guilty, this would be the defendant's third conviction; under the state's "three strikes" legislation, he would automatically serve the maximum sentence for his crime. Ever since his release from jail, McRogue has been seen regularly in the company of Max Cheatem, an ex-convict who himself served time for armed robbery. Two weeks ago, Max Cheatem lent McRogue his blue two-door Ford-a car of the same make, model, and color as the getaway vehicle used in the robbery. And finally, the bank was held up by an assailant carrying a .22 pistol; three days before the robbery, the defendant purchased a .22 pistol. Therefore, McRogue is guilty of robbing the bank.

(1) McRogue having been in desperate need of money is correlated with the likelihood that he robbed the bank.

(2) His likelihood of robbing the bank is not the cause of his desperate need of money.

(3) There is no E3 that caused both McRogue's desperate need of money and his likelihood of robbing the bank.

(4) His desperate need of money and his likelihood of robbing the bank are not coincidentally correlated.

Therefore,

(5) McRogue's desperate need of money is a contributory and primary cause of the likelihood of him robbing the bank.

Option 2:

(1) McRogue having been in desperate need of money is correlated with the likelihood that he robbed the bank.

(2) His likelihood of robbing the bank is not the cause of his desperate need of money.

[3] There is no E3 that caused both McRogue's desperate need of money and his likelihood of robbing the bank.

[4] His desperate need of money and his likelihood of robbing the bank are not coincidentally correlated.

Therefore,

(5) McRogue's desperate need of money is a contributory and primary cause of the likelihood of him robbing the bank.

Option 3:

None of the above. The passage is not an argument. It is just an assertion.