Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT108 S4 P2 Q13 Explanation

Juvenile Delinquency

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

TopicsAnalogyLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Much of mainstream thinking concerning juvenile delinquency in Canada and the United States is based on the assumption that if uncorrected it automatically leads to adult crime and should thus be severely punished, usually by some form of incarceration, before it becomes an ingrained behavior pattern. While there is some connection between its extreme their research suggests that the best form of law enforcement intervention might be none.

The criminologists' unwillingness to attempt to articulate a policy also stems from their failure­—perhaps mirroring that of law enforcement—to distinguish sufficiently between what the young adults themselves think of as criminal behavior and what they consider merely "fun" even while acknowledging that it is illegal. Many of the subjects of the criminologists' rather than routinely imposing incarceration, may be the most effective form of rehabilitation for young offenders.

The problem of juvenile delinquency certainly ought to be dealt with, but the question is one of approach. The conventional wisdom has held that it is essential to make youthful offenders understand that their actions are absolutely impermissible, even if this requires incarceration. However, we do not need to remove delinquents from and it can be achieved without either inflicting incarceration or allowing young offenders to escape penalty.

What this question is testing

Analogy

Topic

The author is asking: what should we do with kids who break the law? Lock them up, ignore them, or something else?

Framework

Problem-Solution. The author lays out two extreme positions and argues for a middle path.

Main Point

The simpler version: locking up young offenders may actually make things worse, but ignoring them entirely is also no good. The author thinks there's a third option — make them face real consequences (return what they stole, apologize) without sending them to jail. That can work as rehabilitation.

P1: Two extremes

The conventional view says lock kids up before they become career criminals. But research suggests jail might actually keep them on the criminal track. Taken all the way, that research even hints we should do nothing — which the criminologists won't say out loud.

P2: Why most kids stop on their own

Young people don't even think of themselves as criminals — they call their delinquency "fun." When the system labels them as criminals, they may start to see themselves that way. Most kids who escape detection just stop misbehaving by 18 anyway, and almost none of them say it's because they were scared of getting caught. So letting kids grow up without the criminal label is itself a form of rehabilitation.

P3: The author's middle path

Don't incarcerate, but don't let them off either. The shoplifter returns the merchandise and apologizes. The goal is to get kids to internalize society's values by the time they're grown — and you can do that without locking them up.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
13.

Which one of the following is most closely analogous to the purported relationship in the passage between incarceration

Answer choices

  1. Bad Research Match2% picked this

    Since medical research shows that untreated melanoma almost invariably leads to more­ serious and generalized lesions, it is a common policy to treat

    With melanoma, medical interventions are a good idea! The problem gets worse without interventions. With juvenile delinquency, incarceration is a bad idea. The problem gets worse with intervention.

  2. Weak Match12% picked this

    It was once a common policy to treat sore throats by removing the tonsils, but medical research has shown that tonsillectomy is generally not

    This is pretty good, because we have research showing that a well-intentioned intervention is actually not that effective and can even lead to harmful effects. That matches reasonably well with research showing that incarceration is a well-intentioned intervention that seems to make the problem worse. There is a gap between "not effective / can lead to harm" vs. "ensures that the problem we were trying to avoid actually ends up happening", but I would keep this answer around in case that's the best we get. It is also a mismatch to say "it was once a common policy to remove tonsils, but research has talked us out of doing that", because in the passage, the research has not yet talked us out of incarcerating juvenile delinquents.

  3. Weak Match4% picked this

    It is a common policy to treat viral sore throats with antibiotics, but medical research shows that antibiotic therapy

    This is somewhat good, because, like the intervention of incarcerating juvenile delinquents, the intervention of antibiotic therapy is shown to have bad effects. Where this answer and (B) are lacking is that it sounds more like there are harmful side effects. They don't mimic the relationship in the passage in which incarceration doesn't just have some harmful side effects, it literally makes the problem we were trying to solve worse. To match that, this answer would need to be saying that "antibiotic therapy virtually ensures that you'll have a sore throat for even longer".

  4. Correct79% picked this

    It is a common policy to treat heartburn with antacids, but medical research shows that the use of antacids often leads to rebound acidity,

    Why this is right

    This beats (B) on two counts: - it is a common policy vs. it was once a common policy after all, jailing juvenile delinquents is still a common policy - the intervention causes the problem it's meant to prevent vs. the intervention is usually ineffective and can by harmful just as incarcerating juveniles seems to actually make it more likely that they will go on to do criminal things as adults, this antacid intervention actually makes it more likely that people will have too much acidity in their guts, causing more heartburn. This answer is assisted by the outside knowledge that heartburn it caused by acidity in the gut, but they weren't relying on our knowledge of that. They used the phrase "causing the very condition that it treats" to signal to us that this has the similar relationship of "ensuring the very problem it was meant to prevent".

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

  5. Bad Match3% picked this

    Since medical research shows that allergic sinusitis treated with decongestant therapy has several accompanying side effects, it is now a common policy to let

    This gets it wrong on two levels: - it acts like research has put a stop to this counterproductive intervention (whereas in the passage it is still common policy to incarcerate juveniles). - it only says that the intervention had some side effects (whereas we want to know that the intervention actually made the problem worse).

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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