PrepTest 107, Section 4, Question 6
Some judges complain about statutes that specify mandatory(80 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- APeople believe that(7 more words not shown)
- BMandatory minimum sentences(7 more words not shown)
- CJudges should be(6 more words not shown)
- DJudges are often(3 more words not shown)
- EMandatory minimum sentences(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can understand why a judge would want room to consider the person in front of them. Imagine a rule requiring ten years in prison for a teenager who shoplifts a candy bar. That's a hypothetical extreme, but it shows why someone might worry that a fixed minimum ignores important differences between cases.
On the other hand, discretion can go badly too. A judge might impose a sentence far too lenient for a serious offense, or make decisions based on an arbitrary preference. So the judges' complaint doesn't settle whether minimum sentences are useful.
The author takes that second side. Restricting judges' choices is precisely the point, because people often think they're exercising wise judgment when they're actually being arbitrary or irrational. The author sees no reason to exempt judges from that human tendency.
What we’re looking for
I'd still like more than a general appeal to history. And even if judges need constraints, must the constraint be a mandatory minimum? Perhaps some review process could address bad decisions. Those are objections to the support, but they don't make the author's position hard to find. For this main-point question, the answer should say that mandatory minimum sentences are needed. The discussion of unreliable judgment explains why.
Working the answers
- A
The author says people are often arbitrary and irrational, not that their judgment is never good. More fundamentally, this general observation about judgment supports the sentencing recommendation. It isn't the point the author ultimately wants us to accept.
- B
This is the judges' complaint. They regard the restrictions as too mechanical and object to losing discretion. The author replies that restricting their discretion is exactly why the minimums are necessary. B presents the objection the passage answers, rather than the author's response.
- C
This favors the freedom the judges want. The author argues for a restriction on that freedom because judges may make arbitrary decisions. So C points in the opposite direction from the author's recommendation.
- D
The author does apply the concern about arbitrary and irrational judgment to judges. But why bring that up? To support mandatory minimum sentences. D gives a reason for the recommendation while leaving out the recommendation itself.
- ECorrect
Mandatory minimums are needed to help prevent arbitrary decisions by judges. That combines the author's position with the reason for it. We can identify that main point even if we aren't convinced that minimum sentences are the best or only way to constrain judicial decisions.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.