LSAT 107 – Section 4 – Question 06

LSAT 107 - Section 4 - Question 06

October 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:48

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT107 S4 Q06
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
1%
152
B
0%
149
C
0%
157
D
2%
159
E
96%
165
120
131
141
 +Easiest 141.321 +SubsectionEasier

Some judges complain about statutes that specify mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offenses. These legal restrictions, they complain, are too mechanical and prevent judges from deciding when a given individual can or cannot be rehabilitated. But that is precisely why mandatory minimum sentences are necessary. History amply demonstrates that when people are free to use their own judgment they invariably believe themselves to act wisely when in fact they are often arbitrary and irrational. There is no reason to think that judges are an exception to this rule.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author argues that mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes are necessary in order to restrict judges’ discretion in deciding sentences. Why is restricting judicial discretion necessary? Because, says the author, people who rely on their judgment are often arbitrary and irrational, and there’s no reason to think judges are any different. So we can infer that judges are likely to use their discretion arbitrarily and irrationally, hence the need to restrict it.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s statement that restricting discretion “is precisely why mandatory minimum sentences are necessary.”

A
People believe that they have good judgment but never do.
Firstly, the use of “never” here makes this much stronger than what the author actually says. Secondly, even if this was stated, the author’s claim about people’s belief in their judgment is not supported by anything else, so not the conclusion.
B
Mandatory minimum sentences are too mechanical and reduce judicial discretion.
Like (C), the author argues against this statement. Some judges believe this, but the author’s argument is designed to prove the opposite, that mandatory minima are a necessary restriction.
C
Judges should be free to exercise their own judgment.
Like (B), the author argues against this statement. The point the argument is trying to make is that judges’ freedom of judgment should be limited because they may be arbitrary and irrational.
D
Judges are often arbitrary and irrational.
This can be inferred from the author’s argument, but the idea that judges are often arbitrary and irrational acts as support for the claim that restricting judges is necessary. That makes this an implicit sub-conclusion, not the main conclusion.
E
Mandatory minimum sentences are needed to help prevent judicial arbitrariness.
This is a good paraphrase of the author’s conclusion. The argument leads us to believe that judges would likely act arbitrarily without restriction, thereby supporting this conclusion, that mandatory minimum sentences are a necessary measure.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply