PrepTest 112, Section 4, Question 3
Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone(107 more words not shown)
The claim in the first(14 more words not shown)
- AIt is offered(17 more words not shown)
- BIt is offered(8 more words not shown)
- CIt is offered(11 more words not shown)
- DIt is offered(21 more words not shown)
- EIt is offered(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could incarceration serve a purpose besides removing a dangerous person from society? What if the possibility of going to prison discourages future lawbreaking? That is a reason I'd want the theorist to address before accepting the opening claim that only a serious threat to others can justify incarceration.
The theorist instead examines two possible sources of lawbreaking: ignorance and free choice. Ignorance is dismissed as an obviously inadequate justification for imprisonment. I don't think calling that obvious settles the question. Someone could seriously harm another person and say they didn't know the act was illegal. That claim alone wouldn't settle for me whether incarceration could serve a purpose.
The free-choice discussion goes deeper. The theorist says choices arise from desires, and desires arise from genetics and environmental conditioning that the person doesn't control. Even if we accept that account, I'd still want to ask about incentives. Could the prospect of incarceration affect future decisions? That possibility is separate from whether someone ultimately chose the desires they have.
What we’re looking for
Now we're asked what the first sentence does in the argument. It states the restriction the rest of the passage tries to establish: incarcerate only people who seriously threaten others' lives or property. The discussions of ignorance and choice attempt to rule out other grounds. They support that opening claim; they aren't the final point themselves.
Working the answers
- A
This reverses the support. The claims about the sources of desires and choices are offered to explain why free choice doesn't justify incarceration. The restriction on incarceration isn't offered as evidence that nobody controls any action. The argument uses an account of control to defend a policy, rather than using the policy to prove that account.
- B
The first sentence isn't merely context that helps us understand the topic. It is a claim the author then tries to defend. Calling it background would miss the relationship between that restriction and the reasons offered for rejecting other grounds for imprisonment.
- CCorrect
The first sentence gives the main conclusion. The theorist wants us to accept that a serious threat to others' lives or property is the only reasonable basis for incarceration. The remaining discussion tries to show why merely breaking a law, whether through ignorance or choice, isn't enough.
We can identify that purpose while remaining unconvinced. Our questions about deterrence challenge whether the reasons establish the restriction; they don't change which claim the reasons are meant to support.
- D
The author doesn't state a comparison ranking protection against retribution in importance. The claim is about which grounds justify incarceration. Nor is the first sentence presented as evidence for some further ranking: it is the restriction being defended. D gives it a supporting role for a claim the argument doesn't state.
- E
The classification of lawbreaking into ignorance or free choice is part of the support that follows the first sentence. It helps the theorist organize the reasons for rejecting lawbreaking alone as justification. The opening restriction doesn't establish that classification; the support runs toward the restriction, not away from it.
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.