PrepTest 128, Section 4, Question 25
Passage A discusses the views of the economist(495 more words not shown)
Passage A(13 more words not shown)
Passage B(490 more words not shown)
Passage A most strongly supports(15 more words not shown)
- AFrom the perspective(12 more words not shown)
- BOnce the jury(15 more words not shown)
- CRecognition of our(16 more words not shown)
- DThe extent, if(22 more words not shown)
- EThe murderer's childhood(12 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
Apply A's argument to B's murderer example. A says human limitations prevent us from properly weighing all the factors that determine what someone truly deserves. How would that affect an attempt to decide how much a traumatic childhood should change a murderer's punishment?
Working the answers
- A
Considering background factors doesn't automatically remove responsibility. Neither the definition of cosmic justice nor A's argument says the murderer cannot be responsible for the crime.
- B
A doesn't make a recommendation about giving judges substantial sentencing discretion. Its concern is the limits of human judgment, not which official should have more authority.
- C
Human fallibility is part of A's argument, but the proposed response is different. A recommends judging primarily by consequences; it doesn't say uncertainty should make us more lenient.
- DCorrect
A says we cannot adequately understand and weigh all the relevant causal relationships. Applied here, that means a judge or jury can't determine exactly how much, if at all, the childhood should reduce the murderer's culpability. The example brings A's general limitation into a specific case.
- E
Not being able to assess an influence precisely is different from saying there was no influence. A's argument doesn't require us to presume that childhood had no effect on the behavior.
More Application questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Application questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.