Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S4 · Q17 The position that punishment

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

The position that punishment should be proportional to how serious the offense is but that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments than first-time offenders is unsustainable.

Conclusion (unsustainable = opinion)

It's not sustainable to think that punishment should be proportional to how serious the offense is and also think that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments than first-time offenders.

Evidence

Were we to believe that, we'd be committed to thinking that what an offender did years ago (i.e. previous offenses) are relevant to how serious their current offense is.

If previous offenses from years ago were relevant, then almost every other remote consideration would be relevant, which would make it impossible to accurately figure out how serious an offense was so that we can assign a proportionate punishment.

Evaluate

If this were a Method of reasoning question, then we'd be saying that this author is undermining a position by showing that it's implications, if true, would be untenable.

The 2nd and 3rd sentence each begin by saying, . And the purpose of tracing out this chain of implications is to demonstrate that if someone believes both that "punishment = proportional to serious of offense" and that , then they're committed to the logic that a repeat offender doing action X is a more serious offense than a first time offender doing action X.

Given that it's the same action, how could the repeat offender's version of doing it be a more serious offense?

The logic would be that the repeat offenders' past actions make their present offense more serious, and that's where the author sees an impossible outcome, in which we have to assess all of an offender's past actions to determine the seriousness of their present offense.

Goal

We're being asked about the 2nd sentence, which was one of the three premises. It's the most direct implication the author mentions of the original position that she's refuting. From there, the argument goes through more implications until it hits the brick wall of "impossible" and thus proves her point that the original position was dumb.

17.

The statement that considerations as remote as what an offender did years ago are relevant to the seriousness of an offense plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

  1. It is a statement the

    No Support Provided

    This answer is acting like this claim was an Intermediate Conclusion, but there were none of those. It might be tempting to confuse a chain of implications with a chain of reasoning, but this argument essentially works like this: The position that "A is true" is absurd. After all, A implies B. If then B, then C. But C would make us hit a brick wall. Consider an analogous argument: The position that Bruno Mars had a show the night of the 1st Moon Landing is absurd. It implies that Bruno Mars was performing back in 1969 when the first landing occurred. If Bruno was performing in 1969, then he would be at least 60 years old by now. But no one in their 60's could dance the way that Bruno Mars currently dances. Did this argument provide grounds to accept that "Bruno Mars was performing back in 1969"? No. The author does not think that was true; she's not trying to support it. Instead, she's saying, "if it were true, then these crazy ideas would follow".

    7% picked this

  2. It is a statement inferred

    Opposite Last Word

    It is a statement inferred from the position the argument seeks to undermine. The first sentence says Position X is unsustainable. The second sentence says that Position X implies that remote considerations like previous offenses are relevant. So the 2nd sentence is being inferred / implied / derived from the position, but the argument isn't defending that position. It's attacking that position.

    9% picked this

  3. It is the overall conclusion

    Wrong Role

    The first sentence is the overall conclusion. The remaining three sentences work together to help demonstrate the first sentence, that Position X is unsustainable.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    It is an allegedly untenable

    Why this is right

    Is there a view rejected in the argument's conclusion? Sure, the first sentence says Position X is unsustainable. T Is the 2nd sentence a consequence of that view, of Position X? Yes, the second sentence says that Position X implies that remote considerations like previous offenses are relevant. So the 2nd sentence is being inferred / implied / derived from that position. It is entailed by that position. It follows from that position. It is a logical consequence of that position. Is our author saying that this 2nd sentence is untenable? Yes, our author alleges that this consequence would make it ultimately impossible to apply the proportionality principle, so the author is alleging that the 2nd sentence renders our plan to make punishment be proportional to the seriousness of the offense an impossible, untenable endeavor.

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

    66% picked this

  5. It is a premise offered

    No Intermediate Conclusions

    This answer is acting like the argument contained an Intermediate Conclusion, but it did not. It might be tempting to confuse its chain of implications with a chain of reasoning, but this argument essentially works like this: The position that "A is true" is absurd. After all, A implies B. If then B, then C. But C would make us hit a brick wall. Consider an analogous argument: The position that Bruno Mars had a show the night of the 1st Moon Landing is absurd. It implies that Bruno Mars was performing back in 1969 when the first landing occurred. If Bruno was performing in 1969, then he would be at least 60 years old by now. But no one in their 60's could dance the way that Bruno Mars currently dances. Did this argument say that "Bruno Mars was performing back in 1969" in order to support that Bruno is at least 60 years old by now? No, the author does not actually think Bruno is 60. He's pacing through logical implications to prove that these are bad ideas, not legitimate supported ones.

    18% 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