PrepTest 140, Section 2, Question 1
The quantity and type of pollution that entered(52 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AThe more severe(28 more words not shown)
- BPenalties for crimes(22 more words not shown)
- CThe severity of(16 more words not shown)
- DThe more severe(22 more words not shown)
- EThe severity of(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Motor oil in the river might point toward the auto repair shop. But other people have cars, too. If I represented the shop, I'd want more than “that looks like the kind of pollution you could produce.” Someone else could have dumped it.
The author also wants stronger evidence, and gives a particular reason: the penalty is severe. Imagine that the consequence is shutting down the business rather than imposing a small fine. The author thinks that greater consequence calls for greater confidence that we have the right polluter.
What we’re looking for
That's the connection we need to support. The argument isn't trying to decide how harsh the penalty should be. It takes the harsh penalty as given and asks whether our evidence is strong enough to justify imposing it. A principle saying “the more severe the punishment, the more certain we should be of guilt” would make that reasoning work.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This connects the severity of a penalty with the certainty needed before imposing it. The shop faces a severe penalty, so the author wants stronger evidence of its guilt. A explains why evidence that merely suggests the shop's responsibility might be insufficient to justify that punishment.
- B
This tells us how to design penalties: make them strong enough to deter offenses without making people unwilling to impose them. Our author isn't recommending a different penalty for polluting. The question is whether the existing evidence justifies imposing the penalty we already have.
- C
Proportionality between harm and punishment is another rule for setting penalties. It might help decide whether this pollution deserves a large fine or a small one. It doesn't tell us how certain we need to be that this particular shop caused the pollution.
- D
Perhaps a severe punishment makes someone reluctant to confess. But the author isn't predicting whether a confession will occur. The argument says that a confession or stronger evidence could supply the confidence we currently lack. D doesn't connect severity with the amount of confidence required.
- E
This objects to penalties so severe that punishment could never be justified. The author hasn't said we could never become sufficiently certain here: stronger evidence or an admission could change the situation. We need support for withholding punishment on the present evidence, not a rule against setting the penalty impossibly high.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.