PrepTest 151, Section 4, Question 17
The position that punishment should be proportional to(74 more words not shown)
The statement that considerations as(26 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(15 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(10 more words not shown)
- CIt is the(10 more words not shown)
- DIt is an(12 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could a punishment rule account for both the current offense and the offender's history? That is my first question. The author says proportional punishment and harsher treatment of repeat offenders cannot be sustained together. To explain why, the author claims the combination would make old behavior part of assessing the current offense's seriousness.
But why would admitting that history make almost everything relevant? What the offender ate for breakfast, or the name of a first-grade teacher, doesn't obviously help assess an offense. The author moves from allowing one remote consideration to an almost unlimited inquiry, then says the inquiry would make proportional punishment impossible.
What we’re looking for
We don't have to resolve those concerns to answer the role question. The targeted statement is the troublesome consequence the author draws from the position being criticized. The first sentence rejects that position; the rest explains what the author thinks goes wrong if we accept it.
Working the answers
- A
The author isn't presenting the relevance of old behavior as an ordinary fact we should accept. It is attributed to the position under attack and then used to show why that position allegedly leads to an unacceptable result. A misses the difference between endorsing a statement and exploring a consequence in order to reject the view that produces it.
- B
The statement is drawn from a position, but the argument seeks to reject that position, not defend it. The opening says the combination of proportionality and harsher repeat-offender punishment is unsustainable. B gets the author's attitude toward that position backward.
- C
The overall conclusion is that the combined position is unsustainable. The targeted statement appears in the explanation of why: accepting the position allegedly makes remote behavior relevant, which allegedly makes almost everything relevant and the principle impossible to apply. It is one step in that criticism, not the final claim.
- DCorrect
The rejected view combines proportional punishment with harsher treatment of repeat offenders. The author says that view implies remote past conduct matters to seriousness, then argues that this consequence would make the whole approach unworkable. 'Allegedly untenable' fits: this is a consequence the author presents as unacceptable, whether or not we agree with the reasoning.
- E
The statement does help the author work through what the disputed position would imply. But the author doesn't offer it as an accepted factual premise supporting an ordinary intermediate conclusion. The reasoning considers it as a consequence of the view being rejected and then develops the difficulty it supposedly creates. D captures that role more precisely.
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.