Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S3 · Q9 In some jurisdictions

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning 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

In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines that mandate a penalty for theft that is identical to the one they have mandated for bribery.

Evidence

In some jurisdictions, lawmakers have instituted sentencing guidelines that mandate a penalty for theft that is identical to the one they have mandated for bribery.

Conclusion

Hence, lawmakers in those jurisdictions evidently consider the harm resulting from theft to be equal to the harm resulting from bribery.

Evaluate

The argument assumes that mandated penalties in sentencing guidelines are proportional to the perceived harm resulting from those crimes.

9.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

  1. Correct

    In general, lawmakers mandate penalties

    Why this is right

    This links the penalty in the sentencing guidelines to the perceived harm resulting from those crimes.

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

    83% picked this

  2. In most cases, lawmakers assess

    Out of Scope

    The legality of an act is not the same as the severity of the mandated penalty for an illegal act.

    1% picked this

  3. Often, in response to the

    Out of Scope

    This compares the severity of the punishment for committing a crime at one time with another. However, the proper comparison is between the perceived harm resulting from theft and the perceived harm resulting from bribery.

    1% picked this

  4. In most cases, a victim

    Too Weak

    This could strengthen the argument if the harm resulting from theft and the harm resulting from bribery are the same. However, the argument would be undermined if the harm resulting from theft is less than the harm resulting from bribery.

    13% picked this

  5. If lawmakers mandate penalties for

    Out of Scope

    Deterring crime is not relevant to the argument.

    3% 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