The author of the passage thinks that ______. A. it is right to imprison the father who pinched a bo

The author of the passage thinks that ______. A. it is right to imprison the father who pinched a box of diapers for his baby B. it is wrong to insist that Proposition 66 would result in nonserious felonies C. it is wrong to insist that Proposition 66 would result in more violent felonies D. it is right to charge as strikes most nonviolent felonies without a good reason

Without the passage itself to refer to, I can’t determine which option the author actually supports.

However, I can explain how to figure this out from context:

If the author says someone got unfairly harsh punishment for a minor crime (like stealing diapers), they likely oppose mandatory “strike” charges for nonviolent offenses → D would be wrong in that case.

If the author argues Proposition 66 is misunderstood and won’t lead to more serious/violent felonies being charged as strikes, they might support B or C depending on what others claim.

A seems like a clear moral statement — if the author thinks jailing the father was right, they’d pick A, but that’s less common in criminal justice reform passages.

From typical passages about “Three Strikes” laws (like California’s Proposition 66), authors often criticize overly harsh sentencing for nonviolent crimes, so D is often what they’re against, not for.
If others say Proposition 66 will cause violent felonies to be strikes, and the author says that’s wrong, then C could be correct.

If you have the passage text, I can identify the exact answer. For now, the most likely guess in a reform-critical passage is:

C. it is wrong to insist that Proposition 66 would result in more violent felonies
(because the author might argue Prop 66 actually narrows the strikes to violent offenses, contrary to opponents’ claims).