PrepTest 113, Section 4, Question 15
Editorial: The threat of harsh punishment for a(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ALegal penalties do(7 more words not shown)
- BAt least some(10 more words not shown)
- CPeople who are(17 more words not shown)
- DThe threat of(17 more words not shown)
- EEveryone has at(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about fear of the punishment itself?
I can imagine a person becoming so preoccupied with being caught that they think less about their own guilt. That is one way to picture the first premise: harsher threats usually reduce the tendency to feel guilt or shame. The second premise says that guilt and shame help restrain transgressions. Reducing that restraint could matter.
But a harsher penalty could also make someone more afraid to act. Even if they feel less shame, they might hold back because they don't want the punishment. The editorial has focused on one possible effect of increasing penalties. I'd want to understand how that effect compares with the direct deterrent.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption the argument requires. My first concern is that competing effect: does fear of punishment offset the reduction in shame? Keep the conclusion's limited wording in mind as we read. It says harsher penalties may increase disregard for others' welfare, not that they certainly produce more wrongdoing in every case.
Working the answers
- A
Whether penalties determine what is morally right isn't the question the argument answers. Its claim concerns how changing penalties might affect behavior. An action's moral status could be independent of its legal penalty while either behavioral outcome occurred. A doesn't supply a required connection in this reasoning.
- BCorrect
This catches a change in terms I hadn't focused on. The premises concern transgressions. The conclusion concerns ignoring other people's welfare. We need some overlap between those descriptions.
If none of the conduct that ignores others' welfare counted as a transgression, the premises about guilt, punishment and transgressions wouldn't establish the conclusion about that conduct. B supplies the minimal connection: at least some actions belong to both groups.
It doesn't say every transgression harms others or settle my initial question about deterrence. A required assumption needn't repair every concern. This one keeps the argument from changing to an entirely unrelated category of behavior at the conclusion.
- C
This offers a possible link between worrying about yourself and caring less about others. But the editorial's stated route runs through guilt and shame, not a rule that concern for one's own welfare reduces concern for others. People could worry about themselves without becoming less considerate while the proposed guilt-and-shame effect still operated. C is not required for that reasoning.
- D
This sets a condition for threats to deter: sometimes the punishment must actually be imposed. It doesn't establish that the condition is met or that harsher threats deter more effectively. More importantly, the editorial doesn't rely on this rule about enforcement. Its proposed effect concerns reduced guilt and shame. D doesn't connect that effect to the conduct named in the conclusion.
- E
Everyone is too strong. The premise describes what harsher threats usually do to a tendency; it doesn't require every person to begin with some guilt or shame about extremely severe transgressions. Some people could lack that feeling without eliminating the proposed effect on others. E adds a universal claim the argument doesn't need.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.