LSAT 30, Logical Reasoning II, Q3, LSATHacks

LR Question 3 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Legal theorist: It is unreasonable to incarcerate anyone for…

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: It is unreasonable to send anyone to jail if they don’t pose a serious threat to the lives or property of others.

REASONING: Breaking of the law does not justify jail. Lawbreaking either means ignorance or free choice. Mere ignorance cannot justify jailing someone. Even free choice does not justify jailing someone. The desires of the agent determine free choice and these desires come from genetics and environmental conditioning. The agent (person) does not control those factors. 

ANALYSIS: You don’t need to understand everything to get this right. It’s enough to figure out that the first sentence is the conclusion. The whole argument is designed to support the idea that we should not jail someone unless they pose a threat. 

___________

1. Actually the last sentence is the premise that shows that agents do not control their actions.
2. No. It is the argument’s conclusion. There isn’t really any background info in this argument. 
3. CORRECT. Everything else in this argument supports the first statement. 
4. The argument didn’t even discuss a trade-off between retribution and protection.
5. No. The bit about ignorance actually is used to justify the first sentence. 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.