LSAT 144 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q6

LR Question 6 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Lawyer: In addition to any other penalties…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify

CONCLUSION: It’s unfair to charge nonviolent criminals the $30 victim surcharge.

REASONING: The surcharge is used to compensate victims of violent crimes.

ANALYSIS: On principle–justify questions, you must connect the facts in the stimulus to the moral conclusion. This conclusion says that it’s “unfair” to charge nonviolent criminals the surcharge. But we have no evidence about what makes something unfair.

The right answer will say that a situation with the facts in the stimulus is unfair. So, for example “It’s unfair to pay a surcharge that supports victims of violent crime if your crime wasn’t violent.”

___________

1. This answer can only support increasing the penalty, since a $30 fine will do very little to deter most people.
2. This doesn’t match the facts. All criminals must pay $30, sure. But presumably a murderer still gets a worse overall punishment than someone who steals a chocolate bar.
3. This answer provides a necessary condition for a surcharge. So if the stimulus violated this necessary condition, this would be the right answer.
   However, the surcharge is used entirely for services, so the stimulus complies with this answer. So this can’t help, since we’re looking for a reason not to have a surcharge.
4. CORRECT. This works. Currently, nonviolent criminals must pay the surcharge even though it’s used to help victims of more violent crimes. This principle says that’s wrong.
5. The author was arguing that nonviolent criminals shouldn’t pay a surcharge. This answer gives a reasons why thieves (a type of generally nonviolent criminal) should pay a surcharge. This is the opposite of what we want.