LSAT 151 – Section 4 – Question 17

LSAT 151 - Section 4 - Question 17

September 2018

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:28

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
PT151 S4 Q17
+LR
+Exp
Argument part +AP
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
6%
156
B
6%
155
C
1%
148
D
69%
164
E
19%
160
141
153
165
 +Harder 145.196 +SubsectionEasier

The position that punishment should be proportional to how serious the offense is but that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments than first-time offenders is unsustainable. It implies that considerations as remote as what an offender did years ago are relevant to the seriousness of an offense. If such remote considerations were relevant, almost every other consideration would be too. But this would make determining the seriousness of an offense so difficult that it would be impossible to apply the proportionality principle.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The position that criminals should be punished in proportion to the severity of their crimes but that repeat offenders should receive harsher sentences is flawed. It wrongly assumes that past misdeeds are relevant to the seriousness of an offense. This introduces a vague standard that would make almost every other consideration relevant, making it impossible to apply this proportional principle.

Identify Argument Part
This is a undesirable consequence of believing the argument that the author is refuting.

A
It is a statement the argument provides grounds to accept and from which the overall conclusion is inferred.
The statement is not a premise. It does not support any other claim in the stimulus. It is an undesirable consequence that would result from believing the argument that the author rejects.
B
It is a statement inferred from a position the argument seeks to defend.
The author does not want to defend this statement. The author strongly disagrees with this statement.
C
It is the overall conclusion in favor of which the argument offers evidence.
This is not the main conclusion of the argument. The author does not believe in the truth of this statement, so it cannot be the main conclusion.
D
It is an allegedly untenable consequence of a view rejected in the argument’s overall conclusion.
This is an accurate description of the statement. The author argues that considering remote actions (an untenable consequence) is a result of the rejected view that repeat offenders should receive harsher punishments.
E
It is a premise offered in support of an intermediate conclusion of the argument.
This statement is not a premise and there is no sub-conclusion for it to support.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 151 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply