Q22 - Political theorist: Many people believe

[deburma]

Hi,

For this question, I was down to (B) and (C) after elimination, and I felt (and I know after looking at the answers) that I was correct with the eliminations. However, I ultimately picked (C) over (B). I am reviewing it now and I think I understand, but worried that such thought might be purely out of surety that (C) is wrong.

If it is not too much of a hassle, would you be able to give me a glimpse of what your thought process would be in approaching this process to get this question right in the first contact?

Thanks.

[aileenann]

Sure thing.

First, after reading the question stem, I would realize that the question was basically asking me to find something to add to the argument to justify the conclusion - that is, possibly to fill a logical gap and/or sure up the reasoning in another way. I would go through the answers working by process of elimination, and the first pass through probably would look something like:

(A) - Definitely wrong - "psychological state" is out of scope unless we assume that psychological state is related to motive - but test takers should not make assumptions, so it's out!

(B) - This looks pretty good - it seems to get at what the author was saying about punishing criminals even if they had in mind a greater good. Keep it for now.

(C) - Doesn't look so good - "legal permissibility" isn't necessarily the same thing as or even directly related to punishment. However, it does talk about what is perceivable, which goes to the issue of motive, so we can leave it for now.

(D) - This has really extreme wording - which might not be a problem since there is some extreme reasoning in the argument...but I think that whether a law can be enforced is out of the scope of this argument.

(E) - This also seems to be out of scope - we did not read anything about "disastrous consequences."

At this point, if I look at (B) and (C), I think that (B) is the better answer. I still think that "legal permissibility" creates a scope problem in (C) whereas (B) seems to get at the main crux of the reasoning above, which is why we should risk overpunishing criminals who really had a good motive.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Aileen,
Can you please explain why motives are not psychological state? In fact, Wikipedia says that "thought process" could be considered a psychological state. Thoughts? I am not sure why A) is incorrect.

I was down to A and B and kept bouncing between the two answer choices.

Please help....


Thanks

[maryadkins]

Hi! Just stepping in for Aileen here.

I see your point about psychological state. But let's look at the rest of (A). It's not about punishment, first of all. (That's what I notice first.) "Solely" raises my antennae, too--are we taking about laws based on psychological states at all, much less ones solely based on them? No. Out of scope.

[janicegyw]

I think i can eliminate the other 4 options, but I still have problem with B.

The question says 'to justify the ... reasoning', not 'to justify the conclusion'.

Stimulus: Punishment should not be mitigated on grounds of admirable motives, because motives are matter of conjecture.

B does justify the conclusion that judges should never mitigate punishment. But does it tell us it is on the basis of motives ? or 'since motives are ... conjecture, and easily be presented as altruistic.'?

B: 'Severe punishment & benient punishment, which is errer' is out of scope of the reasoning here--motive is conjecture.

Then why B is correct, if not justifies the reasoning?
Maybe it's a problem with my own logic...I am really confused.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question janicegyw! And I'm glad that you're paying attention to the difference between simply justifying a conclusion and justifying the reasoning behind an argument - there is a difference, and it is important.

However, in this case, answer choice (B) does help justify the reasoning. The conclusion is that judges should not mitigate punishments. Why? Because judges won't actually be able to determine someone's motivations. The principle bridges the gap between not knowing someone's motives and thereby making an error of judgement when assessing someone's motives. Answer choice (B) says that if you misjudge someone's motives, it's better to error in the direction of being to strict, rather than being too lenient.

Hope that helps!

[janicegyw]

Thanks mattsherman.

Your explanation is very clear.

[erikwoodward10]

After reading the above posts, I'm still having a hard time with this question. The crux of the argument lies in the reasoning that judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motives (the previous sentence suggests that there is some other criteria, but we know that it is not motive).

What is confusing me is that the argument says nothing about a either harsher, or a just punishment. We only know that punishments shouldn't be mitigated based off motive.

So I don't understand how answer choice B can be correct at all--because the argument doesn't say anything about overly severe punishments, so how can we make a judgement about this?

I'm thinking that maybe my approach to the argument itself is off. This is a sufficient assumption question, so the correct answer choice will make the conclusion logically follow. So is it OK to pick an answer choice that seems extraneous and beyond the scope of the argument (such as answer choice B, which addresses overly severe punishments)?

[jenniferreisig]

I might be wrong but I did not select C because I thought that it actually went against in the argument rather than justify it. Not to mention that legal permissibility is also out of scope (but I didn't see that until after I read this chain). In writing this post I also noticed that perceivebale consequences is also out of scope because the stimulus talks about motive, not consequences.

Initially, I read the stimulus as saying that punishment should NOT depend on motive because anyone can present their motives as being altruistic. C states that legal permissibility SHOULD depend on motive. So even if we could correlate punishment with legal permissibility and motive with consequences (which we can't), I think this answer would be wrong because I don't see how it justifies the reasoning in the argument at all. C is a tricky one.

[maryadkins]

Agreed, jenniferreisig.

And erikwoodward10, good question. Mitigated punishment means less severe or harsh. That's why (B) isn't out of scope.

[SJK493]

Is it possible to eliminate answers (A) and (D) because they concern laws, (C) for a similar reason that they concern legal permissibility, and (E) because it refers to legal systems? I know the other details in the answer make it incorrect, but I was wondering because this is a principle question, to what extent the principle can have a broad scope.

Thanks!