LSAT Explanation PT 37, S2, Q22: Political theorist: Many people believe that

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the political theorist's reasoning? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In this passage, the political theorist argues that judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motives, even if the crime was motivated by a sincere desire to achieve a larger good. The reasoning behind this is that motives are essentially a matter of conjecture and even vicious motives can easily be presented as altruistic. The structure of the argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise: Some criminals with admirable motives deserve mitigated punishments.

Conclusion: Judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motives, since motives are essentially a matter of conjecture and even vicious motives can easily be presented as altruistic.

The question type is a Principle question, which asks us to identify the principle that most helps to justify the political theorist's reasoning.

To better understand the passage, let's use a simple example. Suppose a person steals food to feed their starving family. The person's motive for stealing might be altruistic, but it's difficult for a judge to determine the sincerity of this motive. The political theorist argues that since motives can be easily misrepresented, judges shouldn't consider them when determining punishment.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is it possible for judges to accurately determine the sincerity of a criminal's motives?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices:

a) This answer choice talks about laws based on psychological states, which is not directly related to the argument. The argument is about judges mitigating punishment based on motives, not about creating laws based on psychological states. Therefore, this answer choice doesn't help justify the political theorist's reasoning.

b) This is the correct answer. It supports the political theorist's argument by stating that it's better to err on the side of overly severe punishment than overly lenient punishment. This principle aligns with the theorist's reasoning that judges should not mitigate punishment based on motives, as it's difficult to determine their sincerity.

c) This answer choice talks about the legal permissibility of actions depending on perceivable consequences. However, the argument is about mitigating punishment based on motives, not the legal permissibility of actions. Therefore, this answer choice doesn't help justify the political theorist's reasoning.

d) This answer choice discusses the enforceability of laws, which is not related to the argument. The argument is about judges mitigating punishment based on motives, not the enactment of laws. Therefore, this answer choice doesn't help justify the political theorist's reasoning.

e) This answer choice talks about the consequences of adopting a legal system, which is not directly related to the argument. The argument is about judges mitigating punishment based on motives, not the adoption of a legal system. Therefore, this answer choice doesn't help justify the political theorist's reasoning.

In conclusion, the correct answer is B, as it most helps to justify the political theorist's reasoning that judges should not mitigate punishment based on motives.