Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S2 · Q24 Legal theorist: Only two types of theories

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

Legal theorist: Only two types of theories of criminal sentencing can be acceptable—retributivist theories, which hold that the purpose of sentences is simply to punish, and rehabilitationist theories, which hold that a sentence is a means to reform the offender.

Stimulus

Conditionals

~Retributivist and → ~Acceptable ~Rehabilitationist

Retributivist and → ~Acceptable Doesn't use principle that punishment = harm

Facts

A retributivist theory that punishes extra if it's a repeat offense would go against this principle.

Evaluate

The simple Conditional + Fact type inference here would be that the theory they talk about in the last sentence is not acceptable, since it doesn't adhere to the "punishment = harm" principle.

But my spidey-sense makes me think they are probably going to use the Rehab rule or the fact that there are only two acceptable theories rule, in some way.

Goal

Look for an answer that says that the Retributivist theories mentioned in the last sentence are not acceptable, or something else we can derive from the given rules.

24.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the legal theorist's statements?

  1. No rehabilitationist theory holds that

    Unsupported

    We don't know much about rehabilitationist theories. We know that they are one of two acceptable types of theories of sentencing, but we have no information about whether any of them believe that punishment can be a way of reforming.

    8% picked this

  2. Reforming a repeat offender sometimes

    Unsupported

    This goes way beyond anything we talked about. We know basically nothing about "reforming a repeat offender". We only know that Rehab theories think that sentencing should be a way to reform the offender. There's no way to derive from that idea that "Rehab theories think that you sometimes have to give a repeat offender a longer sentence in order to reform them".

    17% picked this

  3. Any rehabilitationist theory that holds

    Opposite of Right Side

    We only have the means to prove that things are not acceptable. None of the information provided lets us conclude that something is acceptable, so as soon as we see that this answer is trying to prove that something is acceptable, we can dismiss it.

    5% picked this

  4. All theories of criminal sentencing

    Opposite of Right Side

    We only have the means to prove that things are not acceptable. None of the information provided lets us conclude that something is acceptable, so as soon as we see that this answer is trying to prove that something is acceptable, we can dismiss it.

    18% picked this

  5. Correct

    A theory of criminal sentencing

    Why this is right

    This is rewarding the inference we made that "the theories talked about in the last sentence are unacceptable", but in a very complicated fashion. Since our only options for acceptable theories are rehabilitationist or retributivist, we can say that a theory is acceptable only if it's rehabilitationist or retributivist. But we were also told that retributivist theories are not allowed to punish repeat offenders more than first time offenders, because retributivist theories are acceptable only if they follow the principle that Punishment is proportional to Harm. A retributivist theory that holds that criminals get longer sentences for an offense if it's a repeat offense than if it's their first offense is violating this principle and thus unacceptable. So a theory that believes in this "longer sentence for repeat offenders" idea would be acceptable only if it's a rehabilitationist theory. This answer isn't saying that if it is a rehab theory, it will be acceptable. It's saying that if it isn't a rehab theory (and therefore is a retrib theory), then it won't be acceptable.

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

    52% 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