PT81.S3.Q17 - Punishment should be proportional to offense

GETREQTLSAT

Hi! So I understand why D is correct but I thought that the sentence "the position that X is unsustainable" was the position the author was trying to defend. In that he/she is defending that it is unsustainable. Why is this thought process not right? It's why I picked B

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-81-section-3-question-17/

MichaelScottRegionalManager

Here, the author is trying to say: [the position that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments] is unsustainable. It's important to note that the "it" in the beginning of the second sentence is referring to "the position that repeat offenders SHOULD receive harsher punishments". The author is saying no to that position.

In AC B, it says that the second sentence is a statement inferred from a position the argument SEEKS TO DEFEND. What is the author defending here/what is the author's conclusion? The author is defending that the position is a BAD IDEA. However, the inference in the second sentence is drawn from the position that "repeat offenders SHOULD receive harsher punishments."

When you think of an inference, think of it ask "from X (or because of X), we can say Y". The second sentence is basically saying "to say that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments would be to say that considerations from long ago are relevant to the seriousness of the offense." AC B would make more sense if it said "It is a statement inferred from the position the argument seeks to oppose" or something like that.

Hope this helps!!

GETREQTLSAT

AHHHHHHHHHH THANK GOD FOR MICHAEL SCOTT. For real, bloody brilliant explanation. Thanks so much - those last two paragraphs brought it home.

MichaelScottRegionalManager

@GETREQTLSAT HAHA glad it helped, good luck studying!😊