PT64.S3.Q09 - in some jurisdictions, lawmakers

rogersalexandra7

I chose D because all the other answers weren't strengthening the argument and the answer is A but the reason why I didn't pick it was because it says " that are proportional to the harm they BELIEVE to result from those crimes". We're not talking about the perceived harm so that is why I didn't choose it, can someone explain to me why this answer is correct. Thank you!
reasons why the other ones are incorrect:
b) Were not talking about legality but harm
c) Were not talking about an increase in penalty were talking about equal sentencing
e) Were not talking about deterrence

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-64-section-3-question-09/

Daniel.Sieradzki

Hi @rogersalexandra7,

Answer choice A is the right answer because we are talking about beliefs for this question. The author argues that because lawmakers have assigned two crimes the same penalty, they consider (believe) that they cause the same harm. Answer choice A supports this by saying that lawmakers assign penalties based on their beliefs (what they consider) regarding the harm caused by those crimes.

Answer choice D is wrong because this argument is not concerned with the actual harm caused by these crimes. We are entirely focused on beliefs. Actual harm is irrelevant.

It sounds like you honed in on this difference between reality vs. belief. This concept comes up a lot on the LSAT. When we are talking about belief, real consequences do not matter. Often the most tempting trap answer choices play on this idea. As people, we are primarily concerned with the actual benefits and harm caused by actions, not what people think about them. Very tricky!

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any more questions.

rogersalexandra7

oh ok I reversed it. Thank you!