Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S2 · Q15 Letter to the editor: You say that

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

Letter to the editor: You say that if the government were to confiscate a portion of the wages of convicted burglars when they reenter the workforce, it would be a form of stealing, hence an abuse of power.

Conclusion (So)

Even if we call confiscating a portion of burglars' wages a form of stealing, it would still be justified.

Evidence

We'd be confiscating wages in order to fund an account to compensate burglary victims.

Evaluate

On Strengthen+Principle, we usually just predict an "If Premise, Then Conclusion" linking idea.

For this argument it would sound like,

If you're "stealing" wages in then this order to fund an account to → "stealing" is compensate burglary victims justified

In other words, the argument seems to be that .

Goal

Let's look for an answer that resembles or that otherwise helps us to strengthen this argument.

15.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to support the argument in the letter to the editor?

  1. Money stolen from a burglar

    Bad Conclusion Match Weakens, if anything

    The argument is about whether or not "stealing" from burglars' wages is justified, not about where should this stolen money go. The other problem is that in this proposal, the money being confiscated is going to a fund for victims of burglary; it's not being given directly to that burglar's victims. In that sense, this principle actually seems to go against this proposal being okay.

    6% picked this

  2. Burglars are obligated to provide

    Unrelated to Goal

    This principle is about what burglars should do, but the conclusion isn't about the actions of burglars. The conclusion is about what we can or can't do in regards to burglars' wages. Also, just like with (A), this principle would support the idea that money confiscated from a burglar's wages should go directly to their victims, not go into some general fund for burglary victims.

    16% picked this

  3. Correct

    The motive prompting an action

    Why this is right

    This is one of those correct answers on Strengthen+Principle that feels less like a linking idea and more like just a generic strengthening idea. It still has the hallmark of every correct Strengthen+Principle answer, in that half of its language refers to the evidence and half to the conclusion. "the motive prompting an action" = confiscating wages in order to fund an account for burglary victims "whether that action is justified" = even if this is a form of stealing, it's still justified This author is probably accepting that stealing, in general, is wrong, but that it's okay to "steal" from a burglar's wages because you're doing it for a just cause (to fund an account for victims of burglary). Since the author thinks the reason we're confiscating this money is what makes it a justified act of stealing, she must be assuming that "the motive for why we do something determines whether it's morally justified or not". Because that's what makes this form of stealing okay, while other forms of stealing are not.

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

    57% picked this

  4. A crime is justified only

    Reversed Logic If-Conclusion

    We can throw out this answer as soon as we see that it's putting the Conclusion on the Left side of the arrow. The conclusion of the argument should match the Right side of the arrow. This rule looks like this: If a crime then it's a means of providing is justified ? just compensation The reverse of this would be a pretty good match for the argument.

    18% picked this

  5. Stealing is never justified even

    Weakens

    This goes explicitly against the author's conclusion.

    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