Reading Comprehension

PT105 · S3 · P2 · Q14 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.

14.

As described in the second paragraph, the second rationale for punishing criminals is most consistent with which one of the following principles?

Correct
The correctness of an action
Why this is right
This answer is kind of sneaky because it's reinforcing language from the end of the 2nd paragraph, not from where the second rationale is initially defined. The end of the 2nd paragraph says: From the retributivist point of view (i.e. the 2nd rationale), the question to be asked about punishment is not whether it is beneficial, but whether it is just - that is, appropriate. So, the correctness (appropriateness) of an action depends not on its consequences (its benefits) but on its inherent fairness (whether it is just).
Skill tested: Principle · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
54% picked this
The correctness of an action
Out of Scope: society deems correct
This seems incredibly close to (A), so we would mainly choose based on the difference. Both of them are trying to pull support from the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph. Do we feel better matching "whether it is just" to the idea of "fairness", in (A), or "what society deems correct", in (B)? The concept of fairness and justice is meant to transcend public opinion. For two centuries, American society deemed slavery correct, but we know it was not fair or just. During the Holocaust, German society deemed it correct that Jewish people would be taken away to concentration camps, but we wouldn't call that fair / just.
4% picked this
The correctness of an action
Partially Contradicted
We're told in the middle of the 2nd paragraph that, the second rationale is that a punishment is justified by the severity of the crime, independent of any benefit to society. And at the end of the 2nd paragraph, it says that we should not be asking "whether a punishment is beneficial". So we're pretty much contradicting the part of this answer. The 2nd rationale isn't asking anything about the consequences of this punishment vs. that punishment. It only cares about whether the punishment matches the crime.
11% picked this
The correctness of an action
Partially Contradicted
Similar to (C), we can say that the 2nd rationale does not think that the appropriateness of a punishment depends at all on the potential beneficial consequences of that punishment. They aren't considered with the effects of the punishment at all, only the cause of the punishment (i.e. what crime was committed that earned someone a punishment).
9% picked this
The correctness of an action
Contradicted
As discussed with (C) and (D), the 2nd rationale doesn't care at all about beneficial consequences of punishment.
21% 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