PrepTest 150, Section 2, Question 24
Legal theorist: Only two types of theories of(92 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- ANo rehabilitationist theory(13 more words not shown)
- BReforming a repeat(17 more words not shown)
- CAny rehabilitationist theory(20 more words not shown)
- DAll theories of(24 more words not shown)
- EA theory of(27 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I'd hesitate to accept that punishment and reform are the only possible purposes of sentencing. But this question asks what follows from the theorist's statements, so we have to work within those rules.
First, only two kinds of theory can qualify: one aims simply to punish, and the other aims to reform. That doesn't make every theory of either kind acceptable. It just limits the candidates.
For a punishment-based theory, the theorist requires proportionality. Think of the contrast between stealing a pack of gum and receiving a twenty-year sentence. The example makes the concern concrete: punishment shouldn't be wildly out of scale with the offense. The theorist then rejects the rule that repeat offenses should always draw longer sentences, because the later offense may be no more serious.
What we’re looking for
Within these premises, a retributivist theory endorsing that repeat-offense rule is out. If a theory endorsing the rule is nevertheless acceptable, it has to fit the other permitted category: rehabilitation. That's the inference I'd predict. It leaves rehabilitation as the possible route; it doesn't guarantee that a particular rehabilitationist theory will qualify.
Working the answers
- A
Having reform as the goal doesn't exclude punishment as a means. A rehabilitationist theory might hold that a punishment helps someone change their behavior. We aren't told whether any such theory does, but the definition doesn't rule it out. A confuses a theory's ultimate purpose with the methods it could use.
- B
Perhaps a rehabilitationist theory could justify a longer sentence as necessary to reform a repeat offender. But the passage doesn't establish that anyone actually needs such a sentence for reform. The criticism of repeat-offense enhancements concerns punishment-based theories, not evidence about which rehabilitation methods work. A possibility isn't enough for this inference question.
- C
Being a rehabilitationist theory only places a theory in a category that can be acceptable. It doesn't prove that every theory in that category is acceptable, with or without this sentencing rule. The argument leaves this route open after excluding the retributivist route; C incorrectly treats an open possibility as automatic approval.
- D
Proportionality is required for an acceptable retributivist theory, but we aren't told it is enough. Even a punishment-based theory that meets that requirement could fail another requirement. D also extends its guarantee to all sentencing theories, although the stated proportionality condition concerns retributivist ones. The problem isn't just the broader category; the guarantee was never established even in the narrower category.
- ECorrect
An acceptable theory has to be retributivist or rehabilitationist. The theorist rules out retributivist theories that demand longer sentences merely because an offense is repeated. Therefore, if a theory with that repeat-offense rule is acceptable, it must be rehabilitationist. E states the remaining requirement without claiming that meeting it guarantees acceptability.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.