PrepTest 158, Section 2, Question 9
Scholar: The purpose of a law is to(66 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(32 more words not shown)
- AIt is offered(17 more words not shown)
- BIt is the(4 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(4 more words not shown)
- DIt is an(2 more words not shown)
- EIt is the(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Deterring people from doing something seems like one purpose of a law. Is it the only purpose? A law might also express what a society considers wrong. Still, the scholar starts by treating deterrence as the purpose, so let's see what that does in the argument.
The next steps make sense together: threats deter people only if they think punishment is likely, and banning more kinds of conduct reduces the chance that any particular violation will be punished. If enforcement is spread too thin, people may stop taking the threat seriously.
But why does that mean a successful system can prohibit only a few absolutely intolerable behaviors? Maybe the system can effectively enforce a hundred prohibitions. Maybe some conduct short of absolutely intolerable could also be prohibited successfully. We'd need more information about enforcement capacity to justify that narrow conclusion.
What we’re looking for
The question asks about the opening statement's role. Our objections don't change that role. The scholar uses the purpose of law as a starting point for the later conclusion about what a successful system prohibits. The argument gives no earlier reason for accepting that opening claim. It's a premise.
Working the answers
- A
The scholar doesn't conclude, explicitly or implicitly, that a legal system needs a significant number of police officers. More officers might be one response to an enforcement problem, but that isn't the response this argument develops. It argues for limiting the kinds of conduct prohibited.
- B
The conclusion is the final claim about prohibiting only a few absolutely intolerable behaviors. The statement about deterrence helps the scholar get there. It isn't the point the rest of the argument is offered to establish.
- CCorrect
A premise is a claim used as support. The scholar starts with the purpose of law, adds claims about when deterrence works and how enforcement weakens, and uses those points to support the final restriction. The opening statement plays that supporting role.
- D
An intermediate conclusion needs support of its own and then supports something further. Here, nothing is offered to establish that deterrence is the purpose of a law. The scholar simply starts with that claim. Helping support a later conclusion doesn't by itself make a statement an intermediate conclusion.
- E
The scholar relies on this view rather than arguing against it. We might question whether deterrence is the only purpose, but that's our reaction. The argument itself accepts the claim and reasons from it.
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.