LSAT 110 – Section 2 – Question 22

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 22

June 2001

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

Target time: 1:41

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
PT110 S2 Q22	+LR	Argument part +AP	A 8% 163 B 5% 160 C 2% 156 D 4% 159 E 80% 168	143 153 162	+Harder	145.606 +SubsectionMedium

Sociologist: Some people argue that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism. Critics of such a view argue that more people were executed for theft in preindustrial England than were executed in England after industrialization. But such a criticism overlooks the fact that industrialization and capitalism are two very different social phenomena, and that the latter predated the former by several centuries.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The sociologist disagrees with critics who use pre- and post-industrialization statistics to argue against a claim about capital punishment and British capitalism. To show why the critics’ argument is poor, the sociologist explains that capitalism and industrialization are distinct, and didn’t even begin at the same time. This establishes that the critics’ criticism (about industrialization) is missing the point of the original claim (about capitalism).

Identify Argument Part

The claim that capitalism and industrialization are distinct is used as a rebuttal to the critics discussed in the argument.

It is cited as some evidence against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author never provides evidence either for or against the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. Arguing against critics is not the same as supporting the claim they criticize.

It is cited as a direct contradiction of the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author never contradicts the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. Specifically, a distinction between industrialization and capitalism does’t contradict that claim.

It is an attempt to conclusively prove the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author never attempts to prove the claim about capital punishment being necessary for labour discipline in British capitalism. The point is to argue against the critics, not to prove the original claim.

It is cited as a fact supporting the critics of the view that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

The author’s whole goal is to refute the critics. Nothing in the argument supports the critics, and the distinction between industrialization and capitalism specifically rebuts them.

It is an attempt to undermine the criticism cited against the claim that capital punishment for theft was an essential part of the labor discipline of British capitalism.

This is a good description of the role played by the distinction between industrialization and capitalism. The author uses the distinction to show that the critics missed the point of the claim they criticize, thus undermining them.

LSAT 110 – Section 2 – Question 22

LSAT 110 - Section 2 - Question 22

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 110 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel