***
This Logical Reasoning question is from the June 2004 LSAT.
No real need for a chain of phrases here, considering how short the argument is, so let's just jump right into it. We can't pre-phrase either, since any number of things could not lend support to the argument, and we can't predict what some of them will be. Let's go through the choices, and remember that given the "except," we're looking for something that doesn't support the argument:
A) The opposite of what we want. If people are motivated by risk and don't really care about consequences, then longer sentences will not deter robbery, just as the speaker said. We want something that contradicts the speaker in the argument.
B) Again, the opposite of what we want, since it lends support to the criminologist. If another somewhat similar crime, embezzlement, wasn't deterred by longer sentences, there's reason to believe that robbery wouldn't be either, just as the criminologist said.
C) Correct. That terms have decreased doesn't support or contradict the argument of the criminologist, which is just the kind of answer choice we want. The argument's talking about the relationship between sentences and the amount of robberies, but this choice talks just about sentence length. The speaker's making no claim about sentence length on its own. This choice is beyond the argument's scope, but in this case that's a good thing, given how the question is phrased.
D) The opposite of what we want, since it supports the argument. If robbers don't think they'll be caught, a higher sentence won't deter them, since they don't expect to get any sentence or conviction at all.
E) Again, the opposite of what we want, since it supports the criminologist. If they don't know the average sentence, there is a significant reason to believe that increasing sentences won't deter them from committing robberies, since they probably won't know about the new sentences either.
Remember:
1) Make sure you know what the question's asking. This is very important on "except" questions like this one, since we're not looking for the choice that confirms the argument but rather the one that doesn't confirm it, which is kind of counterintuitive. Remember that you cannot pre-phrase when there is an indefinite number of possible right answers, as there was here (any number of things might not confirm the argument). Use your own judgment and don't spend a ton of time underlining or writing to make a chain of phrases when the argument's really short, as it was here.
2) Eliminate answer choices that are the opposite of the kind of choice we're looking for; that sounds obvious, but it's amazing how easily one can get tripped up if you aren't looking for these kinds of answer choices. Depending on how the question is phrased, a choice beyond the argument's scope can be the right one; here, for example, they're asking for which choice doesn't confirm the argument, and a choice beyond the argument's scope fits that criterion.
Hey...thanks for this blog.
ReplyDeleteI start my day by coming here first..It's a good mental jolt.
Keep it up!
I agree that (C) is the right answer, I guess I just don't understand why it is really outside the scope of the argument. I seems to me that it could be argued that if sentences have decreased recently (depending on how recent) that raising the severity of the sentence to what it had been previously may not have a significant effect in discouraging people from committing robbery. Though this answer is more attenuated than the others, it doesn't truly seem beyond the scope, and thus rather tricky.
ReplyDelete"raising the severity of the sentence to what it had been previously may not have a significant effect in discouraging people from committing robbery"
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you say that? I don't follow you.
Sorry, it must have been very late when I posted my comment. Once again, I agree that (C) is the correct answer, but I found this to be trickier than you suggest. You state: "That terms have decreased doesn't support or contradict the argument of the criminologist, which is just the kind of answer choice we want."
ReplyDeleteIt seems that this would still be within the scope and could be construed to support the criminologist’s argument. Answer (C) says that "Prison terms for robbery have generally decreased in length recently."
If prison sentences had recently decreased. Say the prison sentences before the decrease were 10 years for a robbery, and within the last two-months sentences have decreased to 5-years for robbery, it seems a fair argument to say that increasing the sentence to what it was just two-months ago will not have a significant effect in discouraging people from committing robbery. Perhaps it might have a significant effect for those who knew of the decrease, but the timeline is ambiguous, and thus it seems that this could be construed to support the criminologist’s argument.
The argument/answer choice never says that the sentence would be increased only to the level it was at before the recent decrease in sentencing terms. Maybe it goes up to 5 times what it used to be, and is thus a major deterrent.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're saying requires an unwarranted assumption. And even with that, it's pretty convoluted.
Yes, I already admitted that (C) was attenuated, but let's get real: American constitutional law and the LSAT in particular are all about convoluted, hair-splitting arguments.
ReplyDeleteYour argument also requires the assumption (and we have no reason to assume this) that sentences are increased only to the level where it was before sentences recently dropped.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great site. Thanks for posting it up. I reccomended it to all my friends who took the lsat-
ReplyDeleteTo address the question; 14th argument. All answers sans (c) discuss reasons why increasing prison terms would have no influence to those it may effect prior to the crime (and conviction). Its scenario is overt in its choice -this leads us not to making assumptions but gaping the assumption with plausable scenarios
Choice (c)reduces the sentence and if anything goes closer to contrary to the objectives assumption. Some can say the statement does nothing but suspend the objective with no int whatsoever. It is those reasons why c is correct