Logical Reasoning

PT21 · S3 · Q15 Politician: The mandatory jail sentences

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

Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integrity of our system of justice, for no longer are there two kinds of justice, the kind dispensed by lenient judges and the kind dispensed by severe ones.

Politician's Conclusion

The mandatory jail sentences enhance the integrity of our system of justice.

Politician's Evidence (for)

We no longer have to worry about lenient judges giving one sentence and severe judges giving a different one, for the same crime.

Advocate's Rebuttal

But now instead of judges giving inconsistent sentences for the same crime, we have a different problem: juries will just acquit a guilty defendant if they think the mandatory sentence for that crime is too harsh. Thus, we should repeal the mandatory sentencing law.

Evaluate

Usually, logically countering someone's argument means that we're finding a way to address their concern while reconciling it with our original position.

i.e. Original position: "this party will be great". Rebuttal: "no it won't, it's raining". Logical Counter: [find a way to argue that the party will be great even though it's raining, or maybe even because it's raining!]

So our answer should be giving us a principle that allows the politician to say,

Goal

I've never seen a question stem that wants a Principle to provide a logical counter, so it's hard to know what we want. Let's just focus on our goal of helping the politician to argue that .

It wouldn't surprise me if the correct answer is in the Weighing Tradeoffs style, where the politician is saying,

So maybe something like,

15.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, provides the politician with the strongest basis for countering the public advocates’ argument?

Juries should always consider whether
Unrelated to Goal
This principle is not addressing the preferability of the mandatory sentencing law nor the advocate's rebuttal. The rebuttal wasn't about cases in which the jury was unsure of guilt. It was about cases in which the jury was sure the defendant was guilty but didn't want the defendant to receive the mandatory sentence.
25% picked this
A system of justice should
Too Vague
If this were saying "a system should clearly define the specific penalty that judges are to issue for a given crime", it would be reinforcing the politician's position. This answer is saying, "Judges are to perform the specific action of sentencing a guilty defendant", but it doesn't offer any further clarity about whether the judge should have any leeway or discretion in determining that sentence.
13% picked this
A system of justice should
Unrelated to Goal
This principle is not addressing the preferability of the mandatory sentencing law nor the advocate's rebuttal. The rebuttal wasn't about whether or not the jury members had any legal expertise. The rebuttal was just saying, "Well now we have a different problem --- juries are acquitting guilty defendants because the mandatory sentence is too harsh". This answer choice doesn't address that concern at all, since it isn't clear why legal expertise would have any bearing on that.
7% picked this
Changes in a system of
Unrelated to Goal
This principle is not addressing the preferability of the mandatory sentencing law nor the advocate's rebuttal. This principle is about how soon / how quickly we should make changes. It's not helping the politician to argue that the change we made to mandatory sentencing was a good one.
4% picked this
Correct
Changes in a system of
Why this is right
Wow, what a brutal correct answer. This barely does what we were expecting the correct answer to do. It does address the rebuttal, since the change in a system of justice (instituting mandatory jail sentences) did produce an undesirable consequence (juries are now acquitting some guilty defendants). I was expecting the politician would be trying to defend that the undesirable consequences are tolerable; the current system is still better than the old system. Instead, this answer is saying that politician could counter by saying, "Whoa, whoa, whoa --- I agree this new phenomenon of juries' acquitting guilty defendants is bad. But we don't need to repeal my beloved mandatory sentencing law. Let's just see if we can fix this problem." In other words, this principle is allowing the politician to say, "Maybe it would be feasible to stop juries from acquitting some guilty defendants by further modification --- perhaps we could not tell juries what the mandatory sentence is, so that they weren't even factoring that into their decisions of conviction / acquittal. Maybe it would be feasible to simply have the judge add to her guidance to the jury as they go off to deliberate, 'Remember, your job is just to convict or acquit. You should not consider sentencing.' Maybe it would be feasible to come up with lesser charges for these defendants who deserve leniency. These lesser charges would still have mandatory sentences, but they would be less harsh. That way a jury could convict the defendant of a lesser charge." If any of those further modifications are feasible, then this principle is would dictate that we "don't reverse the change we made to our system of justice".
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
51% 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