PrepTest 122, Section 2, Question 24
Judicial punishment's power to deter people from committing(55 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(18 more words not shown)
- ASuccess in attaining(64 more words not shown)
- BPeople who drive(40 more words not shown)
- CA new surgical(52 more words not shown)
- DTo be attractive(73 more words not shown)
- EMany young, talented(39 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A harsher penalty might scare people more. But what if making it harsher also makes people less likely to receive it?
The passage gives deterrence two ingredients: how severe the penalty is and how likely it is to be imposed. A small fine and life in prison give different reasons for concern. But even a severe penalty may lose some force if people expect to escape it. The author then tells us how that can happen: a jury may think the punishment is so excessive that it refuses to convict someone it believes committed the crime.
I'd still ask whether potential offenders know juries sometimes respond that way. That could matter to how the risk affects their behavior. But the task is to match the pattern, so keep the author's structure in view: increasing one factor can undermine the other factor and reduce the intended result.
What we’re looking for
We want an outcome depending on two things, followed by a reason that pushing one of them too far can hurt the outcome. “Doing more can backfire” is a useful start, but the two contributing factors and the connection between them will help us separate close answers.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Getting the first academic job corresponds to deterring crime. Dissertation quality and time spent working on it correspond to the two ingredients of deterrence: likelihood of punishment and severity. More time can produce an excessively long, incoherent dissertation, lowering its quality. That matches a harsher penalty leading juries to refuse conviction, lowering the likelihood of punishment.
In both cases, increasing one contributing factor can damage another and reduce the final outcome. The conclusion is appropriately limited: more time can hurt the job search, just as a higher penalty may reduce deterrence. Neither says the increase always backfires.
- B
This also suggests a safety measure can backfire, which makes it tempting. But it starts by comparing the behavior of drivers in two groups, then concludes that those with the safest cars are the most dangerous drivers. It doesn't first identify an outcome depending on two factors and show an increase in one undermining the other. Its conclusion also jumps to the strongest comparison, “most dangerous,” rather than the original's limited possibility.
- C
The new surgery offers a benefit and carries a risk. That is a tradeoff between consequences of a technique, not a case in which increasing one of two contributors to an outcome makes the other contributor worse. We aren't told that increasing the life-extension benefit itself makes the surgery riskier. The connection that drives the original is missing.
- D
This does name two contributors: appeal and hotel space. But the conclusion recommends increasing the more controllable one. It never says that adding hotel rooms damages the city's appeal and therefore makes the city less attractive. Without that backfiring connection, the two-factor opening isn't enough.
- E
This says growing reputation allows an artist to charge more, then treats raising the price as a way to improve reputation. That changes the direction of the proposed relationship. It doesn't identify two factors whose interaction makes an increase counterproductive.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.