PT107.S4.Q6 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PrepTest 107 - Section 4 - Question 6

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action