Reading Comprehension

PT105 · S3 · P2 · Q10 Appropriate Punishments

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Many of us can conceive of penalties that seem disproportionate to the crimes they are intended to punish.

Topic

The rationales behind criminal punishment—should punishment be based on societal benefit or on the crime’s severity?

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

The passage explores why we feel certain punishments are more appropriate than others and discusses whether these intuitions are grounded in the idea of justice (proportionality) or ultimately in benefit to society. The passage leans toward the idea that even our sense of "just" punishment is rooted in societal benefit. *Most Valuable Sentence:* The final sentence of the passage sums up the main point:

P1: The Intuitive "Fit" of Punishment

Kicks things off by giving examples of punishments that just “feel” out of proportion to the crimes—either way too harsh or way too lenient—and wonders where these gut-level reactions come from.

P2: Two Main Rationales for Punishment

Lays out that there are two big reasons usually given for why we punish criminals—the “for the good of society” rationale (deterrence, public safety) and the “because it’s deserved” or retributive approach (punishment should fit the crime). The author points out that the second, retributive, rationale is more controversial.

P3: Problems with Only Considering Social Benefit

Explains that if we ONLY cared about benefitting society, super harsh penalties for small crimes might make sense. But we still feel that just isn’t right, suggesting we care about “appropriateness” or proportionality—elements missing from the social benefit view, but central to retributive justice.

10.

Based on the passage, the "retributive nature" of the second rationale for punishing criminals (second-to-last sentence of the passage) consists in that rationale's

  1. equating social benefit with harm

    Unsupported: equating benefit with harm

    Does the 2nd rationale think that "harm to criminals" is the same thing as "social benefit"? No, the 2nd rationale is, "punishment is justified by the severity of the crime, independent of any benefit to society". Since the 2nd rationale isn't even considering social benefit, there's no way we could say that it's equating social benefit with "harming criminals".

    14% picked this

  2. Correct

    regarding punishment as justified by

    Why this is right

    Does the 2nd rationale regard punishment as justified by the severity of the crime? Yes, in the 2nd paragraph we're told the second rationale is that a punishment is justified by the severity of the crime (independent of any benefit to society) Is this why people think it has a retributive nature? Yes, basically. If the answer said, "justified only by the severity of the crime" it would better convey the idea that the 2nd rationale doesn't care about benefit to society. The fact that the 2nd rationale doesn't care about benefit to society is why people think "it appears to be little more than retribution". This is a stinker of an answer, but we knew the reason some people think the 2nd rationale is retributive in nature is that it only cares about the severity of the crime, not the benefit to society. This answer could do a better job of conveying the notion that people think the second rationale is retributive because it thinks punishment is justified solely by the severity of the crime. But it's still our best available answer.

    Skill tested: Meaning in Context · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    76% picked this

  3. support for sentences disproportionate to

    First Rationale

    The 2nd rationale doesn't support sentences that are disproportionate to the crimes they punish. It's all about measuring punishment in accord with the severity of the crime. It cares about whether punishment is just / whether it's appropriate / whether it's proportional to the severity of the wrongdoing. The 1st rationale could be taken to a logical extreme in which a disproportionate sentence is still supported because it provides societal benefit.

    3% picked this

  4. belief that any punishment that

    First Rationale

    The 2nd rationale doesn't care about benefit to society at all. "From the retributivist point of view, the question to be asked about punishment is not whether it is beneficial, but whether it is just / appropriate". "The second rationale is that punishment is justified by severity of the crime, independent of any benefit to society". The first rationale is the one that wants to make sure that punishments benefit society.

    5% picked this

  5. favoring harsher sentences over more

    First Rationale

    Does the 2nd rationale favor harsher sentences over more lenient ones? No, it's all about measuring punishment in accord with the severity of the crime. It cares about whether punishment is just / whether it's appropriate / whether it's proportional to the severity of the wrongdoing. It favors sentences that are appropriately harsh or lenient, given the severity of the crime. Meanwhile, the 1st rationale could be taken to a logical extreme in which a harsher sentence is favored over a more lenient one because the harsher sentence conveys more societal benefit.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free