LSAT 21, Logical Reasoning II, Q14, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

ARGUMENTS: The politician points out that justice is now uniform. We know longer have harsh judges and lenient judges. Judges must obey mandatory sentencing rules.

The public advocate points out that the mandatory sentences can be too harsh. So sometimes juries acquit when they think the sentence would be too severe.

ANALYSIS: The advocate doesn’t disagree with anything the politician says. But they describe one of the consequences of the legislation: it causes juries to acquit people who are guilty, because they think the punishment would be too harsh.

The advocate adds new information that weakens the politician’s conclusion.

___________

1. The public advocate didn’t accuse the politician of circular reasoning. Instead, they pointed out an undesirable consequence of sentencing rules.
2. The advocate didn’t dispute the politician’s evidence. They just pointed out it had undesirable consequences.
3. The advocate didn’t disagree that some judges were lenient. But they pointed out that leniency is sometimes appropriate.
4. CORRECT. We can see that the legislation has caused some guilty people to be acquitted, which is bad.
5. The advocate didn’t say whether there had been a problem before the sentencing rules, or how bad the problem was.

Recap: The question begins with “The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years”. It is a Method of Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Method of Reasoning questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

---