PrepTest 146, Section 3, Question 19
Jurist: To ensure that a legal system remains(39 more words not shown)
The jurist's claim that it(27 more words not shown)
- AIt states a(12 more words not shown)
- BIt expresses a(9 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(17 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(23 more words not shown)
- EIt is presented(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why follow the law if breaking it gives you an unfair advantage? That's the concern behind the jurist's principle. A system that rewards wrongdoing over compliance has a problem of fairness.
What we’re looking for
The recommendation follows from that concern: punishment should try to make criminal wrongdoing profitless. Other goals may still matter. The phrase “notwithstanding any other goals” leaves them in place while insisting that removing the advantage should be one aim. This role question asks about the starting principle, not the recommendation. The fairness concern gives a reason for the proposed aim of punishment. It's support for the conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
The passage identifies something important for keeping a system just. It doesn't say accomplishing that one thing guarantees the entire system is just. A legal system could remove the profits from crime while having other serious injustices. A turns a requirement for fairness into a complete guarantee.
- BCorrect
The principle says lawbreaking shouldn't give an unfair advantage over following the law. The jurist uses it to support the conclusion that punishment should try to make wrongdoing profitless. It gives the recommendation a reason.
- C
The selected claim is the supporting principle, not a conclusion drawn from the existence of multiple goals. The passage acknowledges possible other goals while explaining why this particular aim matters. It doesn't use those other goals to establish the fairness principle.
- D
This gets the support role right but misstates the conclusion it supports. The jurist says punishment should certainly attempt to make wrongdoing profitless. The argument doesn't rank that aim as the most important one. Insisting that a goal matters is different from putting it above every other goal.
- E
The jurist doesn't refute the possibility of other purposes for punishment. The conclusion expressly allows them. The point is that whatever else punishment aims to accomplish, it should also try to remove the profit from wrongdoing.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.