PrepTest 134, Section 3, Question 9

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A
  Correct

  This supplies the missing connection. If penalties generally track the harm lawmakers believe crimes cause, then equal penalties are more suggestive of equal perceived harm. In general leaves room for exceptions, so the answer doesn't prove what happened in these jurisdictions. But it makes the argument's interpretation of the sentencing guidelines more reasonable, which is enough to strengthen it.

• B

  Deciding whether an act should be illegal is different from deciding what penalty it should receive. Lawmakers could consider harm when banning both theft and bribery, then set their punishments using some other consideration. B doesn't connect the identical penalties to identical judgments about harm.

• C

  Sometimes increasing a penalty after an unusually harmful instance doesn't establish a general relationship between penalties and perceived harm. The increase could be an exceptional response to one event. We still wouldn't know why theft and bribery receive the same penalty in the jurisdictions at issue. A gives the broader connection that makes those equal penalties informative.

• D

  This concerns harm to victims, whereas the conclusion concerns lawmakers' beliefs about harm. Actual harm and their perception of it could differ. And no more doesn't even establish equality: theft could cause less harm than bribery. D therefore doesn't support the particular judgment the author attributes to the lawmakers.

• E

  This tells us a possible benefit of making penalties proportional to harm. It doesn't tell us that these lawmakers actually follow that policy. Even if proportional penalties deter crime, we still need the connection between their chosen penalties and their beliefs. Deterrence itself is not the conclusion being argued for.