LSAT 21 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q15

LR Question 15 Explanation

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

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen

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: We have to find something that tells us not to repeal the law. Only answer choice E says when not to change a law.

___________

1. This doesn’t help the politician. The advocate has pointed out that juries are no longer doing this, thanks to the new law.
2. This is sort of vague. It doesn’t say whether judges should have the freedom to set sentences.
3. Legal expertise has nothing to do with whether a jury thinks a punishment is too harsh. This doesn’t help us conclude the law was a good idea.
4. This supports the advocate’s view that we should change the law. The politician is arguing we shouldn’t change the law.
5. CORRECT. This helps the politician, because it might be possible to fix the problem the advocate identified. So according to this principle we should try to fix the problem before we change the law.

Recap: The question begins with “Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years”. It is a Principle Justify question. Learn how to master LSAT Principle Justify questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.