Passage Summary: Judges don't like mandatory minimum sentences because they want more flexibility, but we actually need these rules because humans—including judges—are often biased and inconsistent when they make decisions on their own.

Conclusion: Mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offenses are a necessary legal tool.

Reasoning: History shows that when individuals are given the freedom to use their own judgment, they often act in arbitrary and irrational ways, and judges are no exception to this human tendency.

Analysis: To identify the conclusion here, look for the author's rebuttal to the judges' complaints. The author introduces the judges' perspective only to dismiss it with the word 'But,' which signals the transition to the main point: 'that is precisely why mandatory minimum sentences are necessary.' Everything following that statement serves as evidence, using a general rule about human nature and history to justify why judges specifically should not have total discretion. The conclusion is the claim that these mandatory sentences are a necessity, despite the objections of the legal community.