Reading Comprehension

PT105 · S3 · P2 · Q9 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.

9.

According to the passage, the second rationale for punishing criminals is controversial because it

  1. Correct

    does not employ the notion

    Why this is right

    This reinforces language from our Support Window: This [second] rationale is controversial because some find it difficult to see how a punishment can be justified if it brings no societal benefit; without such benefit, punishment would appear to be little more than retribution. The second rationale says "the punishment is justified by the severity of the crime, whether or not the punishment benefits society". And people reacted to that like, "Wait a sec ... you don't care whether or not it benefits society? You're not employing the notion of social benefit at all? So they if not for social benefit, why are you punishing someone? Just for vengeful, retributivist kicks?"

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

    89% picked this

  2. allows for disproportionately severe punishments

    Not in Support Window

    There's nothing about disproportionately severe punishments in the sentence we have to go off of: This [second] rationale is controversial because some find it difficult to see how a punishment can be justified if it brings no societal benefit; without such benefit, punishment would appear to be little more than retribution.

    3% picked this

  3. conflicts with our intuitions about

    Not in Support Window

    There's nothing about conflicting with intuitions in the sentence we have to go off of: This [second] rationale is controversial because some find it difficult to see how a punishment can be justified if it brings no societal benefit; without such benefit, punishment would appear to be little more than retribution. This answer does seem a little tempting, though. The criticism of "This rationale sucks. You're making punishment out to be little more than retribution" seems to come from someone whose intuitions about justice are that it should be more than just retribution. But two things: 1) we're much safer picking an answer that actually matches the text provided, and the sentence that explains why the 2nd rationale is controversial says nothing about our "intuitions about justice" 2) The people criticizing the 2nd rationale may think that it conflicts with their intuitions about justice, but this answer choice is speaking from the passage's point of view (i.e. the author's). According to this author, why is the 2nd rationale controversial? She doesn't say that it conflicts with out intuitions about justice. She says, "People don't like that it seems solely about retribution."

    5% picked this

  4. implies that punishment does not

    Not in Support Window

    There's nothing about lack of deterrent effect in the sentence we have to go off of: This [second] rationale is controversial because some find it difficult to see how a punishment can be justified if it brings no societal benefit; without such benefit, punishment would appear to be little more than retribution.

    0% picked this

  5. arises from intuition rather than

    Not in Support Window

    There's nothing about it being intuitive rather than logical in our Support Sentence. This [second] rationale is controversial because some find it difficult to see how a punishment can be justified if it brings no societal benefit; without such benefit, punishment would appear to be little more than retribution.

    2% 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