LSAT 150 – Section 2 – Question 24

LSAT 150 - Section 2 - Question 24

June 2018

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

Target time: 2:02

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
PT150 S2 Q24	+LR	Inference +Inf Conditional Reasoning +CondR Rule-Application +RuleApp	A 7% 159 B 15% 158 C 7% 155 D 18% 159 E 54% 165	154 161 168	+Hardest	145.632 +SubsectionMedium

Legal theorist: Only two types of theories of criminal sentencing can be acceptable—retributivist theories, which hold that the purpose of sentences is simply to punish, and rehabilitationist theories, which hold that a sentence is a means to reform the offender. A retributivist theory is not acceptable unless it conforms to the principle that the harshness of a punishment should be proportional to the seriousness of the offense. Retributivist theories that hold that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses than for an initial offense violate this principle, since repeat offenses may be no more serious than the initial offense.

Summary

If a theory of criminal sentencing is acceptable, it must be (1) retributivist, OR (2) rehabilitationist.

If a retributivist theory is acceptable, then it MUST conform to the principle that harshness should be proportional to seriousness.

Retributivist theories that hold criminals should get longer sentences for repeat offenses do NOT conform to the principle that harshnes should be proportional to seriousness.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

Retributivist theories that hold criminals should get longer sentences for repeat offenses are NOT acceptable (because they violate the principle of proportionality).

No rehabilitationist theory holds that punishing an offender is an acceptable means to reform that offender.

The stimulus doesn’t tell us about what any rehabilitationist theory holds. We know that rehab. theories might be acceptable, but we don’t know anything about the specific content of rehab. theories.

Reforming a repeat offender sometimes requires giving that offender longer sentences for the repeat offenses than for the initial offense.

The stimulus doesn’t tell us what is required to reform a repeat offender. We know rehab. theories want to reform the offender. But we don’t know what’s required to reform an offender.

Any rehabilitationist theory that holds that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses than for an initial offense is an acceptable theory.

The stimulus tells us what’s necessary for being an acceptable theory — it must be rehab. or retributivist. But we don’t know what is sufficient to make something acceptable.

All theories of criminal sentencing that conform to the principle that the harshness of a punishment should be proportional to the seriousness of the offense are acceptable.

The stimulus tells us what’s necessary for being an acceptable theory — it must be rehab. or retributivist. But we don’t know what is sufficient to make something acceptable.

A theory of criminal sentencing that holds that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses than for an initial offense is acceptable only if it is a rehabilitationist theory.

Must be true, because we know that retributivist theories that hold criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses are unacceptable. So if a theory that holds criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offenses could possibly be acceptable, then it must be a rehab. theory.

LSAT 150 – Section 2 – Question 24

LSAT 150 - Section 2 - Question 24

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 150 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel