Passage Summary: Because the punishment for stealing is the same as the punishment for bribery in certain areas, the author assumes the government views both crimes as equally damaging to society.

Conclusion: Lawmakers in certain jurisdictions believe that theft and bribery result in an equal amount of harm.

Reasoning: The legal penalties mandated for theft and bribery in these jurisdictions are identical.

Analysis: The argument relies on a significant bridge assumption: that the severity of a legal penalty is determined solely by the amount of harm the crime causes. If penalties were based on other factors—like how hard a crime is to detect or the need for a specific type of deterrence—the conclusion would fall apart. To strengthen the argument, we need to solidify the link between 'harm caused' and 'penalty assigned.' Look for an answer that suggests lawmakers intentionally calibrate sentences to reflect the social harm of the offense.