Assertion–Reason (Two Reasons): Assertion (A): Capital punishment has been abolished in many countries. Reason (R1): Very few serious crimes occur in most countries. Reason (R2): Most religions consider killing humans to be a sin.
-
AIf only reason 1 (R1) and not reason 2 (R2) is the reason for the assertion (A).
-
BIf only reason 2 (R2) and not reason 1 (R1) is the reason for the assertion (A).
-
CIf both (R1) and (R2) are reasons for the assertion (A).
-
DIf neither (R1) nor (R2) is the reason for the assertion (A).
-
EIf (R1) is partly correct and (R2) is partly correct.
Answer
Correct Answer: If only reason 2 (R2) and not reason 1 (R1) is the reason for the assertion (A).
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The assertion concerns the policy reality that many states have abolished the death penalty. We evaluate whether moral–religious reasoning or crime incidence explains this abolition.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- (A) Abolition exists across numerous jurisdictions.
- (R1) Claims serious crime is rare—factually doubtful as a global explanation.
- (R2) Notes religious/moral opposition to killing humans.
Concept / Approach:Abolition movements typically cite moral principles (sanctity of life), human-rights norms, risk of wrongful execution, lack of deterrence evidence, and discriminatory application. Low crime rates are not a necessary or general driver.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) (R1) is weak: many abolitionist countries still face serious crimes; abolition often preceded crime declines.2) (R2) is historically consistent with ethical/religious arguments against state killing, which, along with human-rights reasoning, plausibly motivates abolition.3) Thus, accept (R2) and reject (R1) as an explanation.Verification / Alternative check:Abolition correlates more with normative frameworks than with uniform low crime incidence.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:(a) privileges an inaccurate empirical claim; (c) wrongly includes (R1); (d) denies a core moral driver; (e) needless hedging.
Common Pitfalls:Assuming policy change implies crime scarcity; ignoring normative/legal factors.
Final Answer:Option B: Only (R2) is the reason.