LSAT 128 – Section 3 – Question 04

LSAT 128 - Section 3 - Question 04

December 2008

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:23

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
PT128 S3 Q04
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Analogy +An
A
6%
162
B
1%
159
C
3%
164
D
89%
167
E
0%
160
121
136
151
 +Easier 145.461 +SubsectionMedium

Live Commentary

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

Huang: Most people who commit violent crimes do not carefully consider whether or how they will be punished for these crimes. And those who don’t commit violent crimes have no inclination to do so. Rather than impose harsh mandatory sentences, we should attend to the root causes of violence to reduce the rate of violent crime.

Suarez: Would you say the same about nonviolent crimes, such as tax evasion? Surely mandatory penalties are a useful deterrent in these cases. At any rate, I am confident that mandatory sentences prevent most people who would otherwise physically harm others from doing so.

Speaker 1 Summary
Huang claims that, to reduce violent crime, we should address the root causes of violence instead of imposing mandatory sentences. As support, Huang explains that most people who commit violent crimes don’t think about the likely punishment. Also, people who don’t commit violent crimes just aren’t inclined to. This indicates that mandatory sentences don’t make much difference.

Speaker 2 Summary
Suarez argues towards an implied conclusion that mandatory sentences are a useful deterrent. To support this, Suarez says that mandatory penalties do deter nonviolent crimes (implying a possible analogous effect for violent crimes). Suarez also claims that mandatory sentences prevent most physical violence from happening.

Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. Huang and Suarez disagree about whether mandatory sentences deter violent crime.

A
the best way to reduce violent crime is to address the root causes of violence
Huang says that we should reduce violent crime by addressing the root causes of violence, which could be taken as agreement with this claim. However, Suarez never talks about the merit of addressing the root causes of violence.
B
people who commit violent crimes deserve harsh punishment
Neither speaker talks about whether people deserve punishment. Their debate is about the practical effect of mandatory sentences, not the moral aspect of deservingness.
C
people who commit violent crimes carefully consider how they will be punished for their crimes
Huang explicitly disagrees with this claim, but Suarez doesn’t give an opinion. Although Suarez thinks that mandatory sentences can deter violent crime, that’s not the same as saying that potential offenders always carefully consider potential punishments.
D
mandatory sentences will deter most people who might otherwise commit violent crimes
Huang disagrees with this but Suarez agrees, making this the point of disagreement. Huang’s argument indicates that mandatory sentences don’t have a deterrent effect on violent crime. Suarez, however, directly states a belief that mandatory sentences prevent most violence.
E
severe penalties reduce the incidence of tax evasion
Suarez most likely agrees with this, but Huang never talks about nonviolent crimes such as tax evasion. We don’t know what Huang thinks about the possible deterrent effect of severe penalties in such cases.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 128 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply