LSAT 77, Reading Comprehension, Q13, LSATHacks

RC Question 13 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: With which one of the following statements…

DISCUSSION: The gist of the economists’ view is in lines 4-8: cost-benefit should be the only factor used in assessing the fine.

You need to be extremely clear on this point. A lot of the answers say things that, if you stare at them a while, may sound like they cooouuld be cost-benefit. But they aren’t! Likelihood of re-offense isn’t cost-benefit. Number of offenses isn’t cost-benefit. Morality certainly isn’t cost-benefit!

Lines 6-8 say that cost-benefit is: cost of fine exceeds profits from crime. That’s the only factor, and that’s why A is correct: risk of business collapse is not relevant to cost-benefit.

___________

1. CORRECT. Lines 4-8 are very clear. The economists think that cost-benefit should be the only consideration.
2. This is a trap answer. The economists think that community judgements are irrelevant to setting a penalty. This answer says “assigning a moral weight to that crime”. The economists never discussed assigning a moral weight. They might be fine with it, if it wasn’t a monetary penalty.
   (The author was the one who discussed a moral weight, on lines 49-50, and we don’ t know what they meant by it nor what the economists would think of it.)
3. Line 17 says that moral judgements should be irrelevant. The economists are for cost-benefit as the only factor.
4. Lines 4-8 are very clear. Cost-benefit should be the only factor. Likelihood of re-offense doesn’t factor into cost-benefit.
5. Same as D. Lines 4-8 say that cost-benefit is the only factor. This refers to the cost-benefit calculation of the crime under consideration, only.