Political theorist: Many people believe

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal18% picked this

   Laws that prohibit or permit actions solely on the basis of psychological states should not be part

   This is a rule about whether or not a law should be a part of a legal system. Our conclusion, though, has nothing to do with saying "this law shouldn't be part of a legal system". Our conclusion is about how a judge should determine punishment for a law that's been broken.

   18%
2. B

   Correct46% picked this

   It is better to err on the side of overly severe punishment than to err on the side

   Why this is right

   This is the Weighing Tradeoffs style of answer. Our author is more concerned about vicious people getting unfairly rewarded with lighter sentences than he is about admirable people getting fairly rewarded with lighter sentences. That's his basis for saying that judges should never factor in motives. This answer is amplifying his assumption, that it's better to err on the side of overly punishing the people with admirable motives than it is to err on the side of under-punishing the vicious motive crowd.

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   46%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal29% picked this

   The legal permissibility of actions should depend on the perceivable consequences

   This is a rule about whether or not an action should be legally permissible. But this argument is about whether or not a judge should give a lighter punishment based on the motives of the criminal. Doing so would not be legally impermissible. The author isn't agitating for us to make that illegal. She is just saying "Judges shouldn't do it". But judges have discretion in sentencing. They have "sentencing guidelines", but it's up to them to decide on particular sentences.

   29%
4. D

   Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

   No law that cannot be enforced should

   This is a rule about whether or not a law should be enacted. But the conclusion isn't saying, "Thus, we shouldn't enact this law about mitigating punishments based on motive." There isn't going to be any law. Judges have discretion to decide on how light/harsh a sentence should be. Our author's conclusion is just trying to recommend that judges don't let motives factor into that decision process.

   3%
5. E

   Unrelated to Goal4% picked this

   A legal system that, if adopted, would have disastrous consequences ought

   This is a rule about whether or not a legal system should be adopted. Our conclusion, though, has nothing to do with saying "this legal system shouldn't be adopted." Our conclusion is about how a judge should determine punishment for a law that's been broken.

   4%