PrepTest 105, Section 3, Question 10
Many of us can conceive of penalties that(441 more words not shown)
Based on the passage, the(20 more words not shown)
- Aequating social benefit(4 more words not shown)
- Bregarding punishment as(7 more words not shown)
- Csupport for sentences(6 more words not shown)
- Dbelief that any(6 more words not shown)
- Efavoring harsher sentences(4 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
What does the offender deserve for this crime? That's the retributive question. Paragraph 2 ties the justification to the crime’s severity, regardless of social benefits. The ending then asks whether this apparently independent judgment might actually come from considering benefit.
What we’re looking for
Here we're identifying the retributive feature that the ending reexamines, not replacing it with the final explanation.
Working the answers
- A
Neither rationale equates benefit to society with harm to the offender. Those are separate considerations that the final paragraph weighs against each other.
- BCorrect
The crime's severity justifies the punishment. In the retributivist view, the question is whether the punishment is appropriate for what the person did, not whether it produces a useful result.
- C
This is the opposite of fitting the punishment to the crime. Retributive considerations allow for proportionality.
- D
Justifying punishment because it benefits society describes the first rationale, not the retributive feature of the second.
- E
A proportionate response could be harsh for a serious crime or lenient for a minor one. Retribution doesn't simply mean choosing the harsher sentence. The crime matters.
More Application questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Application questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.