Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT116 S2 Q8 Explanation

Criminologist: Increasing the current prison

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsStrengthen

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.

Stimulus

Criminologist: Increasing the current prison term for robbery will result in no significant effect in committing robbery.

What this question is testing

Strengthen

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion more likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that are consistent with the argument but add no real support, or that strengthen a claim the argument doesn't make.

Winning move

Locate the gap between evidence and conclusion, then pick the choice that closes it.

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

The question
8.

Each of the following, if true, supports the criminologist’s

Answer choices

  1. Strengthens5% picked this

    Many people who rob are motivated primarily by thrill-seeking

    This indicates that many who commit robbery are motivated by thrill-seeking and risk-taking. A longer sentence increases the risk, so it might increase the thrill of committing robbery, supporting the claim that harsher penalties won't discourage it.

  2. Strengthens8% picked this

    An increase in the prison term for embezzlement did not change the rate at which

    This presents an analogous case where increasing prison terms did not discourage embezzlement, therefore lending support to the claim that a similar approach wouldn't deter robbery.

  3. Correct77% picked this

    Prison terms for robbery have generally decreased in

    Why this is right

    This suggests that prison terms for robbery have generally decreased in length without addressing the impact of increasing them. It doesn't provide information that supports or undercuts the claim about the deterrent effect of longer sentences for robbery. And it almost might suggest to us that prison terms are currently too lax to be a deterrent, but raising them might work.

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

  4. Strengthens4% picked this

    Most people committing robbery believe that they will not

    This claims that most people who commit robbery believe they won't be caught, so the length of the prison term is irrelevant to them, supporting the idea that increased penalties won't act as a deterrent.

  5. Strengthens6% picked this

    Most people committing robbery have no idea what the average sentence

    This suggests that most people committing robbery are unaware of the prison sentence, indicating they wouldn't be deterred by lengthening it, aligning with the claim that increasing terms won't discourage robbery.

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