PrepTest 140, Section 2, Question 15
Letter to the editor: You say that if(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(15 more words not shown)
- AMoney stolen from(9 more words not shown)
- BBurglars are obligated(9 more words not shown)
- CThe motive prompting(10 more words not shown)
- DA crime is(13 more words not shown)
- EStealing is never(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Compensating burglary victims sounds like a good purpose. Does that make taking the burglars' wages justified?
The letter answers yes. Even granting the editor's description of the taking as stealing, the writer thinks the money's intended use makes the action acceptable. I can understand the appeal: people suffered a loss, and this fund would help compensate them. But agreeing with the purpose isn't yet a rule establishing that the government may take the money. Someone could think that two wrongs don't make a right, even when the second action benefits a victim.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle supporting the letter. We need a connection between why the government acts and whether the action is justified. A principle making the action's purpose relevant to its justification would address the step the letter relies on.
Working the answers
- A
This says where money should go once it has been stolen from a burglar. It doesn't justify stealing it in the first place. We could agree that wrongly taken money should be used to help victims while still objecting to the government's initial taking.
- B
A burglar's obligation to compensate the people harmed doesn't automatically authorize the government to confiscate wages. The letter needs support for that government action. Also, the proposal funds an account for burglary victims; it isn't described as returning each burglar's wages only to that same burglar's victims.
- CCorrect
The motive for an action determines whether it is justified. This supports evaluating the proposed confiscation by its purpose—compensating burglary victims—instead of treating the label “stealing” as enough to settle the question. That is the kind of reasoning the letter uses: look at why the money would be taken when deciding whether the taking is acceptable.
- D
This gives a requirement for a justified crime: it must compensate deserving people. Meeting a requirement doesn't guarantee justification. A crime could serve that purpose and still be unjustified for another reason, so D doesn't supply the needed support for the writer's conclusion.
- E
This directly opposes the letter's reasoning. If stealing is never justified even when it benefits burglary victims, the intended benefit can't rescue the proposed confiscation once we grant that it is stealing.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.