Very confused on what this question was asking and what I should be looking for.
From what I can understand, it's asking that where does retributive nature exist in the second rationale? And if so, B can be paraphrased around line 45-48 where it says "similarly our intuition that a punishment is just is based on our sense that this punishment fairly balances societal benefit against harm". But I don't get how this can "consist" based off the next line on 50, where the question tells you to reference, where it says "retributive nature disappears". So it technically doesn't have retributive nature.
I chose A and new I didn't know what I was doing but I was anticipating something that would have to reflect punishment by the harm/societal harm it's caused? Something like that.
Still lost on this.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q10
I would rephrase this question stem as asking me,
“Why are we saying that the second rationale has a RETRIBUTIVE NATURE”?
If a question stem said, “Peter’s ‘fatal flaw’ consists in Peter’s having … “
I would think it was asking me “What is Peter’s fatal flaw?”
The use of “retributive” tracks back to lines 17-21, where the author is saying this 2nd rationale bothers some people (controversial) because it seems like “little more than retribution”, which I read as “society, in some spiteful way, wanting to inflict harm on the criminal”.
Society isn’t seeking benefit; it’s seeking revenge (retribution).
Looking at the answers …
(A) The author never said that the 2nd rationale EQUATES social benefit with harm to criminals. Lines 14-17 say that the 2nd rationale is INDEPENDENT of any benefit to society. In the final paragraph, she said that the 2nd rationale factors in societal benefit vs. harm to criminal.
(B) This is definitely something true of the 2nd rationale. Lines 14-16 support this answer.
(C) This is the opposite of (B).
(D) This is too extreme: ANY punishment that benefits society is just? Also, lines 14-17 tell us that societal benefit has nothing to do with this 2nd rationale.
(E) There’s no implicit bias towards harsher sentences. The rationale justifies a proportionality between offense and punishment.
(B) is the answer because “retribution” essentially means “getting EVEN”. If you do me 10 units of harm, I inflict 10 units of punishment. The retributive nature of the 2nd rationale is that the punishment will be proportional to the crime.
They just made the question confusing by quoting “retributive nature” from line 50, even though the explanation of why it’s thought of as ‘little more than retribution’ comes from the 2nd paragraph.
Hope this helps.
“Why are we saying that the second rationale has a RETRIBUTIVE NATURE”?
If a question stem said, “Peter’s ‘fatal flaw’ consists in Peter’s having … “
I would think it was asking me “What is Peter’s fatal flaw?”
The use of “retributive” tracks back to lines 17-21, where the author is saying this 2nd rationale bothers some people (controversial) because it seems like “little more than retribution”, which I read as “society, in some spiteful way, wanting to inflict harm on the criminal”.
Society isn’t seeking benefit; it’s seeking revenge (retribution).
Looking at the answers …
(A) The author never said that the 2nd rationale EQUATES social benefit with harm to criminals. Lines 14-17 say that the 2nd rationale is INDEPENDENT of any benefit to society. In the final paragraph, she said that the 2nd rationale factors in societal benefit vs. harm to criminal.
(B) This is definitely something true of the 2nd rationale. Lines 14-16 support this answer.
(C) This is the opposite of (B).
(D) This is too extreme: ANY punishment that benefits society is just? Also, lines 14-17 tell us that societal benefit has nothing to do with this 2nd rationale.
(E) There’s no implicit bias towards harsher sentences. The rationale justifies a proportionality between offense and punishment.
(B) is the answer because “retribution” essentially means “getting EVEN”. If you do me 10 units of harm, I inflict 10 units of punishment. The retributive nature of the 2nd rationale is that the punishment will be proportional to the crime.
They just made the question confusing by quoting “retributive nature” from line 50, even though the explanation of why it’s thought of as ‘little more than retribution’ comes from the 2nd paragraph.
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1