PrepTest 113, Section 2, Question 22
Political theorist: Many people believe that the punishment(67 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- ALaws that prohibit(18 more words not shown)
- BIt is better(19 more words not shown)
- CThe legal permissibility(11 more words not shown)
- DNo law that(6 more words not shown)
- EA legal system(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A sympathetic story might be true. It might also be a good story told by someone who wants a lighter sentence.
The theorist concedes that some people with admirable motives deserve less punishment. So the position isn't that motives never matter morally. The concern is whether judges can reliably tell which motives are genuine. Someone with a vicious motive could describe the crime as an attempt to help others.
That creates a difficult choice. If judges accept those accounts too readily, some people get leniency they don't deserve. If judges refuse to reduce punishment based on motives, some people with genuinely admirable motives lose a reduction the theorist admits they deserve. Why choose the second risk over the first?
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that helps justify the theorist's recommendation. I'd look for a rule against granting leniency on grounds that can be manipulated, or a rule saying we should lean toward harsher punishment when choosing between these kinds of mistakes. We need support for how to sentence people, not a new account of which actions should count as crimes.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns whether an action is prohibited or permitted based solely on a psychological state. The argument concerns reducing punishment for an action already treated as a crime. Those questions are different: an act can remain illegal even when a judge considers motive in deciding the sentence. A doesn't tell us whether to grant that reduction.
- BCorrect
To “err” is to make a mistake. B says that, between punishing too severely and punishing too leniently, the first kind of mistake is preferable.
That helps explain the theorist's choice. Refusing motive-based reductions risks punishing some deserving people too harshly, while granting them risks being fooled into unjustified leniency. B gives a reason to favor the stricter approach despite the concession about admirable motives. It doesn't say every person deserves the harshest possible punishment; it tells us which error to prefer when evaluating this policy.
- C
Whether an action is legally permissible is whether the law allows it. We need a principle about punishment after a crime, specifically whether motive should reduce that punishment. A rule tying legality to observable consequences doesn't answer that sentencing question.
- D
We aren't told the relevant laws can't be enforced. The difficulty is judging motives honestly, not whether authorities can enforce a prohibition. D supplies a condition for enacting laws without connecting that condition to the recommendation about lighter sentences.
- E
What disastrous consequences? The passage gives a risk of being misled about motives, but it doesn't establish that adopting a particular legal system would be disastrous. To use E, we'd have to add that missing assessment. B speaks directly to the choice between excessive severity and excessive leniency that the argument actually presents.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.