LSAT 112 – Section 4 – Question 03

LSAT 112 - Section 4 - Question 03

December 2001

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:06

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
PT112 S4 Q03
+LR
+Exp
Argument part +AP
Link Assumption +LinkA
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
1%
159
B
5%
167
C
93%
166
D
0%
141
E
1%
161
120
120
120
 +Easiest 142.561 +SubsectionEasier

Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for any other reason than that he or she is a serious threat to the property or lives of other people. The breaking of a law does not justify incarceration, for lawbreaking proceeds either from ignorance of the law or of the effects of one’s actions, or from the free choice of the lawbreaker. Obviously mere ignorance cannot justify incarcerating a lawbreaker, and even free choice on the part of the lawbreaker fails to justify incarceration, for free choice proceeds from the desires of an agent, and the desires of an agent are products of genetics and environmental conditioning, neither of which is controlled by the agent.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
A legal theorist argues that incarceration is only reasonable when someone is a threat to the property or lives of others. The rest of the argument supports this claim by explaining that lawbreaking itself stems from ignorance or free choice (neither of which justifies incarceration on its own).

Identify Argument Part
This is the conclusion that the rest of the argument seeks to support.

A
It is offered as a premise that helps to show that no actions are under the control of the agent.
The claim in the first sentence is not a premise, nor is it about the control of an agent’s actions. One having no control of their desires supports the main conclusion of the argument (not the other way around).
B
It is offered as background information necessary to understand the argument.
This is not background information; it is the main conclusion of the argument. The rest of the argument supports this (the author’s main conclusion).
C
It is offered as the main conclusion that the argument is designed to establish.
The claim in the first sentence is the main conclusion of the argument. The following sentences are filled with premises and sub-conclusions that support the author’s main point.
D
It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that protection of life and property is more important than retribution for past illegal acts.
This is factually inaccurate. The argument does not compare the importance of protecting life and property to retribution. Furthermore, this is not evidence; it is the main conclusion that the evidence is directed to support.
E
It is offered as evidence for the stated claim that lawbreaking proceeds from either ignorance of the law, or ignorance of the effects of one’s actions, or free choice.
The first sentence is not evidence for this claim. That lawbreaking proceeds from ignorance of the law or one’s own choices is evidence for the author’s main point (the first sentence).

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 112 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply